Lindsey Graham Leads Contentious Senate Budget Committee Hearing On Sanctuary Cities

[0:00] the Republican hearing on Sanctuary Cities. Are our Democratic friends on the way? Should we wait? [0:10] We know if they're coming. Could somebody find that out? I will go ahead and make sure our [0:23] Democratic colleagues have their time and ask their questions. So, we're the Budget Committee, [0:30] the mighty, mighty Budget Committee that did reconciliation, and thank you very much. [0:35] Greetings, greetings. Right on cue. I would hope this committee would take round two and see if we [0:43] can do something on reconciliation in round two. But that would be up to a group of us and talk to [0:49] the leadership about that. But this hearing today, I think, is timely. We're trying to look at the [0:57] budget impact of a policy called Sanctuary Cities. Now, there are 200, I think, cities, 14 states, [1:06] we've got a chart here somewhere, that engage in the practice of sanctuary cities. Now, what is [1:13] that practice? Local officials, state local officials, basically have adopted a policy of [1:21] not turning over to the federal government illegal immigrants subject to being turned over because [1:29] they don't like the policy. They don't want to engage in deporting these people. Now, under [1:36] President Obama, I think three million people were deported. Now, I don't believe any Republican [1:43] refused to work with the federal government to deport these people. And when President Obama [1:50] deported three million people, it was called being strong and good government. When we try to deport [1:57] people as a result of being invaded by illegal immigrants for four years under the Biden administration, [2:03] we're not seizing bad guys. I don't buy that at all. I think most Americans would like to get control [2:14] over our country and sovereignty over our nation. Immigration done right can be a tremendous benefit [2:23] to the country. When you obliterate the borders for four years and people from all over the world flood [2:30] in, you got a problem. And it needs to be fixed and cleaned up. As to ICE, if we can make ICE more [2:38] professional, if we can do things at DHS that make it more professional, count me in. I think [2:45] Mark Wayne Mullen would be a great secretary to do that. But to my Democratic colleagues, we'll never [2:53] fix illegal immigration until you get to the source of the problem. And one of the problems we have is [3:01] magnets to encourage future illegal immigration. I got 12 sanctuary states, 200 cities. There are 25,000 [3:13] people that ICE had a detainer on that were refused to be turned over. Next one. We believe [3:26] it endangers public safety. 10,000 criminals released by sanctuary policies who went on to be [3:33] arrested for additional crimes. They should have been turned over. They weren't. They stayed in the [3:37] country and they committed crimes. Nine being in fraud that we know of and probably growing. 59% of [3:48] legal immigrant households on government welfare programs, consisting taxpayer, costing taxpayers, [3:55] 42 billion a year. That's some real, real money. Let me give you a real life example of what happens [4:02] when you don't do this right. Fairfax. I think we're going to hear here in a minute from one of our [4:13] questions. Fairfax police warned prosecutors about repeat offender months before deadly bus stop [4:23] stabbing. And this gentleman here, Bill, what's his name? Jalal, was in custody and had a pretty [4:34] bad rap sheet. People in the prosecution business say, don't release this, I mean, deport this guy. [4:43] Turn him over. Don't release him. That was good advice. It was not taken. This young lady here, Stephanie [4:56] Minter, was murdered by this man. And we had this man in detention in Fairfax County and they refused [5:07] to turn him over for deportation. He was allowed to stay in the county and the rest is history. A young [5:16] mom is dead because of that decision. And who was this guy? He came to the country in 2012. He [5:35] was arrested 30 times, rape, malicious wounding, and assault. 2020, ICE events a former detainer to [5:44] deport him. The request is blocked by Virginia's attorney for Fairfax County, a source-backed prosecutor [5:53] and defender of sanctuary cities who ignored the detainer. On May 2025, he was arrested once more [6:01] for stabbing an individual in the leg, but again released. 30 arrests, May 2025, stabbed somebody [6:14] in the leg, let him go again. February 2026, just months later, he murders Ms. Minter. I'm not okay with [6:28] that. I think that's offensive to who we are as a rule of Long Nation, to the people in Fairfax County, [6:37] to this district attorney. I wish we could find a way for these people to sue you and make you pay [6:45] a heavy price for ignoring your legal obligations under federal law and showing such poor judgment. [6:55] How many arrests is necessary? How many people need to be stabbed before a guy like that is deported? [7:03] And what's the upside of keeping him here? Is this the model citizen we want to keep in America? [7:10] Now, there's an ideology around sanctuary city that needs to be broken, and we're here to break it. [7:18] I've got legislation designed to change this dynamic. Going forward, if a local official or a governor, [7:35] anybody, refuses to cooperate with federal government in turning over people subject to [7:44] deportation under federal law, they can be prosecuted because they should be prosecuted. [7:53] You've got to make it so that those who hang on to these illegal immigrants in defiance of federal law, [8:00] that they feel the pain, not just the public. So my hope is that we can find a way forward [8:10] to break the cycle of the damage being done from sanctuary cities, the cost incurred to the taxpayer, [8:19] and what happened to Stephanie just like never happens again. We're not going to quit on this. [8:26] If you want to defend it, you're welcome to do it. And this is not going away. You'll never have [8:35] rational immigration as long as you have 12 states saying, if you get here, you never leave. [8:42] You're never going to fix this if you have 200 cities that practice sanctuary policy, [8:49] because the illegal immigrant believes I'd get there and never leave. I've tried to work with [8:56] Democrats like many over here to find a rational solution to our illegal immigration problem. [9:04] We're not going to ignore four years before Joe Biden obliterated our border. People came in from all [9:09] over the world by tens of millions, flown into the interior of the country, and only God knows where [9:15] they're at. Look at the number of people on the terrorist watch list and how it's gone up 2,700%, [9:30] 21, 22, 23. Where are these people? They don't know. I asked. Nobody knows where they're at. [9:38] So in this invasion during the Biden administration, we had 11,000 murderers. Look at the number of [9:48] people on the terrorist watch list. They're in our country and we don't know where they're at. [9:52] So what we're going to do is be willing to reform ICE, try to fix problems that we've seen, [9:58] but we're not going to give up on the idea that we need to right wrongs here and deport people that [10:05] present danger and try to regain control over our immigration system. To my Democratic colleagues, [10:16] what is the answer to sanctuary cities? Is it to continue the policy? Is it to eliminate the policy? [10:26] All of us say eliminate it. I think the public is with us by like 80%. And until we eliminate the policy, [10:35] you're going to see more and more stories like I just described. And it is now time to call the [10:43] question on sanctuary cities. Will it be the norm going forward in America or will it change? [10:51] To my colleagues on this side of the aisle, thank you for supporting this effort. We're fully committed [10:59] to eliminating sanctuary cities for the good of the country. To my Democratic colleagues, we'd love to [11:07] join with you in a rational way to do some things to make ICE more professional. But what you need to [11:14] do in return is work with us to eliminate one of the biggest magnets to future illegal immigration, [11:21] which is sanctuary city policy. With that, Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [11:29] It's been a year since we've had a meeting of this budget committee and a lot has happened in that last [11:35] year. Of course, one of the big things that happened was a piece of legislation that Trump called his big, [11:42] beautiful bill. But most of us consider it a big, ugly betrayal of the American citizen. [11:50] What did it proceed to do? Slash nutrition for hungry children, gutted health care for millions of [11:57] families, enormously increased the wealth of the already wealthiest in our country. That's certainly not [12:04] government by and for the people. That's government by and for the powerful. And it massively increased [12:11] our national debt, estimated to be a $30 trillion increase over the next 30 years. And if interest [12:21] rates are 1% higher than used in CBO model, call that a $50 trillion increase in national debt over the [12:29] next 30 years. And it also massively increased the budget for ICE. I don't think you'll see many changes [12:45] in budgets that look like this. You won't see a leap like this for housing in America, [12:53] a fundamental need for families. You won't see this for health care in America. In fact, [12:58] health care was savaged by the big, ugly bill. You won't see this for education in America, [13:05] but you certainly see it for ICE. Now, these issues of the impact on nutrition budgets and health care [13:17] budgets and housing budgets and deficit and debt and the budget for ICE, those are all very good [13:24] topics for this committee to hold a hearing on. But we haven't held a hearing on that. Now, [13:32] Trump has turned ICE into secret police. I can't believe that we now have secret police in America, [13:40] but we do. I well recall studying secret police back when I was in college and the basic mark of them [13:48] was they'd show up in unmarked vans, unmarked uniforms, no judicial warrant, knock down doors [13:57] without a judicial warrant, grab people, detain them, and often prevent them from having access [14:05] and communication with families or lawyers. All of that's happening right now in America. [14:12] We now have a secret police called ICE, and it's a tremendous black spot on our nation [14:21] that this has happened under this administration. Freedom and privacy, laws, norms, and our Constitution [14:30] all shredded. Heartbreakingly, three American citizens have been killed by ICE. Renee Good, Alex [14:43] Preddy in Minnesota and Ruben Ray Martinez in Texas. Now when ICE killed Ruben Ray Martinez, they hid the [14:53] fact. So most Americans aren't aware that a third individual was killed. But recent reporting by CBS News [15:01] obtained the body cam footage showing him being killed by an ICE officer in March of 2025. Now ICE's budget has [15:11] been increased by a factor of seven. The way that it operates has been dramatically changed from the [15:20] norms of law and justice in a democratic republic to the strategy of secret police in an authoritarian regime. [15:27] That would be a very good topic for a hearing given how much ICE's budget has increased and we should be [15:35] holding and examining that question. Wars come with enormous costs. We know that the wars in the Middle East [15:46] and Afghanistan and Iraq were staggering in terms of blood and treasure. More than 7,000 Americans killed. [15:56] More than 50,000 Americans injured, often life-altering injuries. More than six trillion dollars of national [16:06] treasure expended. So here we are. America's at war. That would be a good topic for a budget hearing. [16:14] Seven U.S. service members already killed. The Pentagon estimating a billion dollars a day. In fact, [16:23] some of my colleagues have said it's two billion dollars a day. A big change in expenditures and revenues. [16:32] But none of those are the topics of today's hearing, the first we've had in a year. But we do have this [16:39] topic that my colleague has pointed out. Sanctuary cities. Well, sanctuary is a bit of misnomer. Sanctuary [16:50] states and cities are not places that are a safe haven where immigrants cannot be detained or deported. [16:58] It refers to the decision that local police will serve as local police and not be commandeered to be [17:07] assistant ICE agents. These policies are rooted in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And my colleagues [17:15] across the aisle like to lean on states' rights. It's certainly a state's right to refuse to have [17:22] its local police commandeered to be assistant ICE agents. Assistance now to ICE operating as a secret [17:29] police in the United States of America. So the idea that local police do local police work [17:36] and ICE agents do ICE work is protected by our Constitution. But there's also a public safety [17:43] rationale behind it. We know that when local police serve as local police, they build relationships with [17:50] the community and decrease crime. Research shows that jurisdictions that choose for local police [17:58] to be local police and not assistance to a secret police refusing to be commandeered as a federal agent, [18:08] they have a higher median household income, they have less poverty, they have less reliance on public [18:15] assistance, they have lower unemployment. Those all sound like pretty good things to me. And they have [18:25] lower crime rates. A 2022 study found that allowing local police to be local police not commandeered to be [18:32] assistant ICE agents results in a decrease in crime rates in those communities. And why? Well, because [18:43] in places where they do get commandeered to be assistant ICE agents, they get less information, less [18:49] trust, less ability to prosecute, and crime goes up. So if my colleagues are all for crime, then persist in [18:59] trying to violate the Tenth Amendment and the wise wisdom of those states that see the wise separation with [19:06] different roles. And there's nothing about local police being local police that hampers federal immigration [19:14] enforcement. In fact, when people are arrested, fingerprints, data, crime are all put into a [19:23] national database. So the federal government has all it needs. And if it wants to make sure that a [19:28] person is handed over at the time that a person is completing their sentence in a local or state [19:36] institution, all they have to do is get a judicial warrant. A judicial warrant. That's all that's required. [19:42] We've already seen the harm that happens when the executive branch tells the executive branch [19:47] that it's okay to override Americans' civil rights. The reason we have separation of powers in our [19:55] constitution, something being seriously eroded under this administration. So as a reminder, [20:02] each of these issues slashing nutrition assistance, gutting health care, increasing the wealth of [20:08] billionaires, exploding deficits and debts, transforming ICE into a secret police, launching a war, are all [20:17] appropriate issues this budget committee should be focused on. But the decision by cities and states [20:23] to enhance public safety by having local police focus on local police issues is not a new change. And so [20:32] it's puzzling to me why that's the decision for this first hearing in a year. What we know is that [20:39] states and cities that let local police be local police do pretty damn well. With that in mind, [20:45] I've invited two expert witnesses to join us today. Mr. David Beer from the Cato Institute, an expert on [20:52] sanctuary policies, and the broader concerns about the homeland, Department of Homeland Security, [20:58] and its $170 billion for immigration enforcement with little accountability or oversight. Joining [21:05] him is Mr. Brendan Duke from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which focuses on critical [21:11] budgetary concerns, including how the big ugly betrayal law exploded our debt and raised the costs for [21:19] working families. So I appreciate both of you joining us today. And while he's not able to join us for [21:26] today's hearing, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has written a statement and it explains how the [21:33] home states, my home state, Oregon, how their policies to let police be police has assisted and helped [21:44] him and the law enforcement officers keep Oregon communities safe. As he notes in his statement, [21:51] Oregon's police policies have peacefully coexisted with seven presidential administrations. Mr. Chair, [21:58] I ask unanimous consent to enter his statement into the record. And I also ask unanimous consent to [22:05] submit a statement for the record from the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which states, [22:10] quote, when local departments are pressured to prioritize federal immigration objectives, [22:15] officer time and resources are diverted from serious threats such as violent crime, domestic violence, [22:22] and community safety concerns. The result is a policing environment that is less effective and less [22:28] less trusted. Creating a less effective and less trusted local public safety environment should not be the [22:36] objective of the federal legislature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. So the novel approach, [22:43] the 10th Amendment protects sanctuary cities. I hadn't heard that one, but we'll we'll talk about that [22:48] later. So our witnesses are former Secretary Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland [22:57] Security from 2019 to 2020, and the current Homeland Security Immigration Chair of the American First [23:04] Policy Institute. Sheriff Michael Chapman has been the sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia since 2012. I [23:11] think you're next door to Fairfax County. You can tell us about that. Ms. Jessica Vaughn is Director of Policy [23:17] Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, where she has worked since 1992. Welcome to y'all. If you'd rise and [23:25] raise your right hand, please. [23:29] Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth, [23:33] and nothing but the truth, sir, if you got it. Welcome to y'all. Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Chairman Graham and [23:43] Ranking Member Merkley for the opportunity to testify before the committee today. What we now commonly call [23:49] sanctuary cities was born nearly 50 years ago in California and since then has exploded nationwide. [23:56] According to the Department of Justice, 12 states, District of Columbia, as well as 22 other [24:01] jurisdictions for now are officially considered sanctuary jurisdictions. But as the chairman said, [24:07] there are likely hundreds more. According to a 2024 report, nearly 8 million illegal aliens resided [24:14] in those jurisdictions. And one in every three Americans or 120 million Americans live in sanctuary [24:21] jurisdictions. To be clear, this is not a localized phenomenon. Ultimately, sanctuary policies affect [24:28] every American. And so while not all sanctuary jurisdictions have the exact same policies, [24:33] they all share a core belief that it is acceptable and even justified to ignore illegal immigration [24:41] and violations of our immigration law. But our law is clear. Title 8, Section 1227 clearly states that [24:49] aliens who enter the U.S. illegally or otherwise in the U.S. without lawful authorization are in fact [24:56] removable. That is the mission of ICE. The law goes on to address those who harbor illegal aliens. Title 8, [25:04] Title 8, Section 1324 states that any person who encourages or induces an alien to come, enter, [25:10] or reside in the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact of such coming to entry or [25:16] residence will be a violation of law. Now, due to the supremacy clause and a long list of judicial [25:23] opinions interpreting that, states do not have the authority to pick and choose which federal laws are [25:29] recognized and enforced. And they do not have the authority to nullify federal laws by ignoring them [25:34] or proactively creating obstacles to their effectiveness. Tragically, sanctuary policies are [25:41] unleashing devastating consequences for the American people, particularly those that live in those [25:46] jurisdictions. In California, again, the birthplace of the sanctuary movement, local politicians released [25:53] 4,641 criminal aliens from local jails in 2025, rather than handing them over to ICE for removal. Those [26:03] criminals included aliens that had committed homicide, assault, sexual predatory offenses, and burglary. And just [26:10] weeks ago, as the chairman indicated in Fairfax County, just miles from where we are today, a criminal [26:16] illegal alien with more than 30 arrests fatally stabbed a woman in the neck. And that county, Fairfax [26:23] County, has been a sanctuary for almost a decade. And this is the tragic result. Despite the dangerous [26:29] nature of sanctuary jurisdictions, there are some that will not stop until we've become a sanctuary nation, [26:36] largely free from all border enforcement and immigration enforcement. Calls for ice-free zones, detention [26:42] bans, and even an outright abolishment of ice are becoming increasingly common. The evidence is clear. To [26:50] restore the rule of law, common sense, and public safety, the era of sanctuary jurisdictions need to come to an [26:56] end permanently. Thankfully, President Trump and numerous states are taking action, but legal challenges persist and [27:03] sanctuary jurisdictions are still largely able to exist under current law. Congress should take action. [27:10] In my written testimony, I've outlined several recommendations to address this issue, including [27:16] the need to hold local officials accountable for knowingly violating the law. Let us heed the lessons [27:22] that we've learned from tragedies unfolding in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, [27:27] San Francisco, and others. The American people are safer when state and local governments cooperate with [27:33] federal immigration agencies. State and local governments should give our agents access to their [27:38] jails and prisons so that federal agents can screen prisoners, determine their immigration status, [27:44] process removable aliens, and transfer custody to federal authorities once an alien is released. [27:50] This requires little effort from local governments, yet under sanctuary policies, state and local [27:55] officials often slam the door shut on immigration officers. I'd like to close with a simple question for [28:02] those who continue to support sanctuary policies. How many more Americans need to die at the hands of [28:09] illegal aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions? Sanctuary cities must become an artifact of American [28:17] history rather than the ongoing safe haven for drug dealers, narco terrorists, murderers, and dangerous [28:22] people who threaten the safety and the security of the American people. And let me just end on a comment made [28:29] by the ranking member talking about secret police. I think that's an outrageous comment. I think the men and women [28:35] of ICE are sworn law enforcement officers. They do their job. They're trained to do their job. [28:39] They have a very dangerous job in what they do. And to continue to denigrate their job and how they go [28:47] about it in such a dangerous environment I think is a disservice to them. Mr. Chairman, since the [28:53] testimony involves the comment I made, I will just reply that if you don't want to be secret police, [29:01] don't act like secret police. And I laid out the factual basis on exactly all the qualities that [29:06] they are utilizing now that are the hallmark of secret police around the world. Thank you. [29:15] Chairman Graham, ranking member Senator Merkley, and other members of the committee, I am Loudoun [29:20] County Sheriff Mike Chapman and lead Virginia's most complex and largest full-service sheriff's office [29:24] employing over 900. Loudoun County sits just outside of Washington, D.C. and is home to Leesburg, [29:30] Middleburg, and the Dulles International Airport. In Loudoun County we celebrate a diverse community, [29:35] have an extraordinarily diverse workforce, welcome everyone here that's here legally, and within our [29:41] organization speak over 25 different languages. I have served 47 years in this profession as a local [29:47] police officer, a career DEA special agent, and for the past 14 years as an elected sheriff. I am honored [29:54] to sit before you today to discuss our mutual concern of sanctuary cities and counties. I am fortunate [30:00] that Loudoun County is part of a traditional form of government that enables a sheriff to conduct [30:06] all law enforcement, jail, and court operations under one roof, essentially making me both a sheriff and [30:12] a police chief. This differs significantly from our surrounding jurisdictions where appointed county, [30:17] city, and town police chiefs are the norm. Loudoun's form of government has enabled me to make [30:23] decisions in the best interest of our citizens free of mandated political agendas. It has also allowed me to [30:28] be the only Republican law enforcement leader in all of Northern Virginia. That responsibility is a [30:34] double-edged sword. While I don't answer to our 7-2 Democrat Board of Supervisors for policy decisions, [30:41] I do receive my budget from them. This dichotomy causes significant friction, making this a very [30:46] challenging area. Our system of government, however, provides our citizens with a check and balance. We [30:52] endured a two-year battle with our Board of Supervisors who pursued converting our sheriff's [30:59] office into a police department several years ago to exercise complete power and control over our agency. [31:05] We defeated this aggressive action because our citizens ultimately decided that they prefer having [31:10] a direct voice in who leads their public safety through the election process. This system and our [31:16] common-sense approach to problems putting citizens first is why the sheriff's office has been awarded [31:21] favorite government service for two years running in our local newspaper and why I've been selected [31:26] as favorite public servant for the past five years. Regarding immigration, it is important to [31:31] distinguish criminal aliens who pose a threat to our community from immigrants here legally. [31:37] Consequently, while our surrounding jurisdictions choose to be sanctuaries, not make this distinction, [31:43] and not honor ICE detainers, we do just the opposite. We have always cooperated with all of our state, [31:49] local, and federal counterparts, including ICE, and have routinely notified ICE of those in our custody [31:55] for criminal offenses who also had active detainers issued by ICE regardless of the presidential [32:00] administration. We honor all detainers and warrants from other law enforcement jurisdictions, [32:06] just as I would expect them to honor ours. These practices likely contribute to why our agency [32:11] has the lowest crime rate in the entire Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia area and is one of the safest counties [32:17] in the entire United States. That doesn't mean we're exempt from problems related to illegal immigration. [32:23] In 2024, we experienced five homicides, three of which were committed by people here illegally. [32:29] Two of the three were committed by an MS-13 gang member. In a neighboring county, one that refuses to [32:35] contact ICE regarding criminals they arrest, two homicides were committed in just over the past two months. [32:42] One occurred within 24 hours after the criminal who had an outstanding ICE detainer on him was released [32:48] from jail without any notification to ICE. The other police questioned why the subject had been released [32:54] and warned the prosecutor of danger, stating not if, but when he would assault again, resulting in a [33:00] grandmother being stabbed to death at a bus stop. This exemplifies what happens with sanctuary counties. [33:06] Law enforcement's hands are tied by politicians and political agendas. Last year, I signed a 287G [33:13] Warrant Service Officer Program Agreement, which enabled us to hold a person arrested for a criminal violation [33:19] an additional 48 hours for ICE in the event ICE couldn't pick them up immediately. This enabled us to safely [33:26] turn over criminal illegal aliens to ICE, who otherwise would have been released into our community and [33:31] could pose an additional threat to our residents. This simple process has kept ICE from having to [33:37] conduct street operations in our area. I have told my community that not turning over criminal aliens [33:43] to ICE who could endanger our residents would be irresponsible and dangerous to the very people [33:48] I've sworn an oath to protect. This process, which has worked well for us, is likely to become far more [33:55] challenging considering the legislation currently in motion in Richmond. Our governor rescinded the [34:00] previous administration's executive order, which enabled jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE. This was [34:05] followed by legislation proposed by both houses of our General Assembly, which if passed and signed by [34:10] the governor will likely require judicial warrants from ICE for local law enforcement to act on anything. [34:15] Considering immigration is a civil offense, this action will no doubt force us to release detainees [34:22] incarcerated by us for criminal offenses unrelated to immigration back into our communities where they [34:27] could pose an additional threat to our citizens. If this committee can exercise any leverage to influence a [34:33] different outcome, I am confident that law enforcement officials throughout Virginia and other locations [34:38] who are familiar with these challenges would be grateful. We take our jobs seriously and want to [34:44] keep all of our citizens safe. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to answering any questions. [34:53] Good morning and thank you. More than half of removable aliens live in those jurisdictions that have [35:03] sanctuary policies intended to hinder immigration enforcement and prohibit cooperation between state [35:09] and local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, which is almost always a violation of [35:14] federal law and imposes enormous costs on taxpayers. My organization has been tracking these policies [35:22] since 2015 and we maintain a list and map of jurisdictions and policies on our website. Those who promote sanctuary [35:30] policies often claim that they're needed to build trust with immigrants so that they'll report crimes or to avoid [35:37] distracting local law enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement. These claims are disproven and [35:43] disingenuous. In fact, sanctuary policies are an irrational political response based on disagreement [35:50] with federal immigration policy and opposition to enforcement of immigration laws. The motivations for [35:58] sanctuary policies are ideological and political, but the cost of sanctuary policies is unfortunately very tangible. [36:06] First, the public safety costs. Most, and these are the most significant and problematic. Between October of 2022 and February of 2025, [36:17] sanctuary jurisdictions refused more than 26,000 detainers for criminal aliens. Half of these were in California, [36:25] and large numbers also were released in Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. [36:32] The individual jails that released the most were Santa Clara County, California, Cook County, Illinois, [36:38] and Fairfax County, Virginia. In 2024 alone, the Fairfax County Sheriff declined to honor 744 detainers [36:49] for criminals for criminals that she had in custody. That's more than two a day. Some of these are gang members [36:55] with long rap sheets who get arrested over and over, costing county taxpayers untold sums in repeated [37:01] crimes, prosecution, and incarceration. Others are child predators and sex offenders. Oregon is another [37:10] place that protects criminal aliens with strict sanctuary policies. Last fall, ICE actually had to issue [37:16] subpoenas just to try to get four Oregon sheriffs to share information on violent felons who had been [37:22] released despite ICE detainers. They had convictions for rape, assault, child exploitation, and kidnapping, [37:31] among other crimes. What possible reason can there be for not cooperating with ICE for their removal? [37:37] It's certainly not a public safety reason. And it seems as if they actually want to make immigration [37:43] enforcement as costly and labor-intensive as possible. Besides blocking law enforcement agencies [37:49] from cooperating with ICE, sanctuary states typically have other policies that attract illegal settlement [37:55] and thus burden taxpayers with support of illegal immigrants. Besides funding emergency health care [38:01] and schooling for all, a number of sanctuary states go farther and choose to provide Medicaid, [38:07] subsidized health insurance, nutrition assistance, housing, and much more. Illegal immigrants use [38:13] these welfare programs in large numbers. My organization has found that over 60% of illegal alien-headed [38:19] households are using at least one form of welfare program, and usually more than one, at a cost of [38:27] tens of billions of dollars to taxpayers. This is why any resources spent on immigration enforcement [38:36] actually save taxpayer money in the long run. It is my repeated observation that the politicians who [38:44] support sanctuary policies are not moved by the costs or the pain their policies have caused American [38:52] families. Victims like Stephanie Minter, Denny McCann, Drew Rosenberg, Matthew Denise, Dominic Durden, [39:01] Laken Riley, and Kate Steinle, and so many others. These are priceless lives lost to sanctuary policies, and it's wrong to [39:10] trivialize their loss as a statistical blip. Some states like South Carolina, Florida, and Texas have [39:18] banned sanctuary policies. The Trump administration is making progress through outreach and litigation, [39:25] but while the federal government likely cannot force sanctuary jurisdictions to do the right thing, [39:30] it can create consequences for sanctuaries. Congress needs to create additional consequences, [39:37] like disqualification from certain federal funding, so that taxpayers are not subsidizing sanctuaries. [39:45] Congress should also clarify that state and local police have the authority to cooperate with [39:50] immigration enforcement so that they can't be blocked from doing it by state or local laws. [39:55] In addition, those who are seriously harmed as a result of sanctuary policies should have some [40:00] resource in the courts. Thank you. Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished [40:09] members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. For half a century, [40:14] the Cato Institute's research has shown that people, whatever their ancestry, background, [40:20] or birthplace, can thrive in a free society. Immigrants come to work for us and with us to make [40:28] our lives better. They work at higher rates and are nearly twice as likely to start businesses here. [40:34] Immigrants have reduced government deficits by $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years. And yet, [40:44] Congress has not updated the legal immigration system during that entire time. So just 3% of all [40:55] legal immigrant applicants were approved in 2024. Rather than fix this broken system, the new [41:02] administration banned half, half of all the legal immigrants who had made it to the end of that [41:10] process, including spouses and children of U.S. citizens. The fallout from this flawed system is left [41:22] to our cities to manage. In many areas, one in five residents lives with someone here illegally. [41:30] Mass deportation is not an option for these places. It is an attack on them. It is taking Americans, [41:39] Americans, away from their spouses, parents, pastors, parishioners, employees, employers, customers, [41:48] and friends. It's not us Americans versus them immigrants. Cities know immigrants are part of us. [41:59] They also know that immigrants are here to build, not destroy. A mountain, literally a mountain of [42:09] research proves that immigrants and reasonable limits on participation with ICE do not increase [42:17] crime rates. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are half as likely to be incarcerated for crimes in [42:23] the United States. According to DHS, only about three percent of illegal immigrants have any criminal [42:30] convictions. Immigrants reduce crime rates, which means you're less likely to be a victim of a crime. [42:41] Let me be clear. When a non-citizen does victimize someone, they should be convicted, imprisoned, [42:49] and deported. But it is DHS that has ignored this formula. Just 28 percent of the people detained by ICE [42:59] right now were convicted of any crime at all. This is no surprise. DHS has abandoned its public safety [43:08] mission. It has stripped millions of vetted immigrants of their legal status just so that it [43:15] could deport them. Instead of protecting us, DHS violates the Constitution. Its masked agents invade our [43:23] homes without warrants. They detain without evidence, and they deport without due process. They intimidate, [43:31] beat, and even kill Americans who protest. They arrest legal immigrants for writing opinion articles. They [43:38] lie to the courts, and then they ignore them. With all this unconstitutional mayhem, Congress should not [43:47] itself violate the Constitution by threatening local law enforcement, not for interfering with ICE, [43:57] but rather for following their own local laws that they swore an oath to uphold. Under our system of [44:04] federalism and the Constitution, Congress can't force cities to do its bidding, whether on immigration, [44:12] guns, or the environment. If Congress wants cities to help DHS, it'll need those cities to trust DHS. [44:24] But to get trust, you need to be trustworthy, and this DHS is not. Consider this. Before this [44:32] administration, noncitizens were more likely to report serious crimes to the police than the U.S.-born [44:40] population. Now, DHS is arresting immigrant crime victims. For example, in Iowa, a shooting victim who [44:51] helped bring to justice violent robbers was arrested by ICE before he had even healed. But since he had a [44:59] pending charge for an unpaid traffic ticket, ICE considers him a criminal. This has caused filings for [45:08] U visas, for crime victims working with police, to drop by 63 percent. This is not making Americans safer. [45:21] Congress must require DHS to focus on real threats, and it must empower Americans to sue federal agents for [45:29] violating the Constitution. We need accountability and constitutionality to restore trust. Thank you. [45:38] Thank you, Chair Graham, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the of the Budget Committee. My name [45:48] is Brendan Duke, and I'm Senior Director for Federal Budget Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy [45:53] Priorities. The Center on Budget is a nonpartisan research and policy institute that advances federal [45:59] and state policies to help build a country where everyone has the resources they need to thrive [46:03] and share the nation's prosperity. Let me first begin with an overview of our fiscal situation for [46:09] the Budget Committee. Analyses typically focus on government spending and revenue as shares of the [46:14] economy. In 2025, revenue was 17 percent, which is around the same level as in 1985. Programmatic [46:21] spending, on the other hand, grew seven-tenths of a percentage point since 1985. But Social Security and [46:27] Medicare are responsible for more than 100 percent of the increase in spending because the country has gotten [46:32] older. That is nobody's fault. I'm sure everyone on this committee wishes they had the same knees or [46:37] back they did 40 years ago. Similarly, we all wish we had the demographics and ratio of working-age [46:42] Americans to retirees that we had 40 years ago. The combination of population aging and basic [46:47] arithmetic means we will face a choice between raising revenue past the 17 percent of GDP levels set when [46:53] the country's demographics were more favorable or making drastic cuts to important programs. The retirement of [47:01] the baby boom was a predictable and predicted development. But at the beginning of the 21st [47:05] century, we had a fiscal system that would deliver adequate projected revenue to meet our needs. [47:10] Rounds of unpaid-for tax cuts ruin that. Take a look at projections for 2025 that were made [47:15] right before most of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent and before anyone even thought of the [47:19] Trump tax cuts and compare them to the actual 2025 numbers. The 2025 deficit is much higher than [47:25] projected in 2012, despite programmatic spending being lower than projected. The reason the deficit rose is [47:31] revenue has come in far lower than projected as a result of those unpaid-for tax cuts. Importantly, [47:36] Social Security, Medicare, and other health programs such as Medicaid and premium tax credits [47:41] also came in below CBO's 2012 projections. What all of this ultimately shows is that it's entirely [47:47] possible to meet our commitments to seniors while ensuring millions of low and moderate income [47:51] Americans have health care and food if we are willing to raise the revenue to do so. Instead, [47:57] Congress made a different choice last summer. The giant reconciliation bill [48:01] adds 3.4 trillion dollars to the deficit as it extends tax cuts to the wealthy despite cutting [48:05] SNAP and Medicaid by about 20 percent by 2034. CBO more recently estimated this figure at 4.7 [48:11] trillion dollars over the new budget window and including interest. Notably, this 3.4 trillion [48:17] dollar cost is higher than the cost of extending all of the expiring tax cuts for all families, [48:22] including for millionaires, but without the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid. And it would have cost far less [48:27] than to extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent of families making under $400,000 without those cuts [48:33] to SNAP and Medicaid. In other words, the cuts to health care and food assistance in the reconciliation [48:38] bill were entirely the result of Congress's choice to load the bill with tax cuts beyond the 2017 tax cuts [48:44] along with large increases for defense and immigration enforcement. The result is millions of low-income [48:49] families will lose the ability to afford the high cost of groceries or go to the doctor when they're sick, [48:54] cuts that a vast majority of the public staunchly oppose. Moreover, the entire cost of the tax cut [48:59] was essentially offset by the Trump administration's decision to raise taxes on imported goods. Cutting [49:05] income taxes financed by taxes on imported goods is a poor trade. It is both economically inefficient [49:10] and further pushes the burden of financing the government from high-income to low- and middle-income [49:14] families. In fact, the combo of the Trump administration's tariff regime and the spending cuts [49:20] on the reconciliation bill will leave households in the bottom 70 percent worse off. The Supreme [49:25] Court last month handed the Trump administration an opportunity to save face by ruling that many [49:30] of these sweeping tariffs were illegal. Instead of using the court decision to back down on a failed [49:34] policy, Trump has instead replaced the struck down tariffs with a sweeping 10 to 15 percent across [49:39] the board tariff. I think we can all agree that the steps required to significantly improve the outlook, [49:43] whether through revenue increases, program cuts, or both, can be politically challenging. Immigration can [49:48] reduce the need for those difficult measures. Immigrants contribute to our communities and the [49:52] U.S. economy in many ways. In particular, they improve our fiscal outlook by boosting our national [49:56] birth rate, and they boost our workforce. Last month, CBO evaluated the economic and fiscal effects [50:01] of the administration's anti-immigrant policies. CBO cut in half the projection of the annual growth [50:07] rate of the U.S. population over the next 10 years. CBO now estimates that the 2035 working age [50:12] population will be 2.4 million people smaller than in its previous projection. This has important fiscal [50:18] costs, too. CBO projects that the administration's actions to reduce immigration will increase [50:22] deficits by 500 billion dollars over 10 years, principally by reducing the number of taxpayers. [50:27] Those higher deficits will make deficit reduction that much harder, adding to the damage from H.R.1. [50:33] Financing income tax tilted to the wealthy by cutting programs and raising import taxes while [50:36] discouraging and disparaging immigrants is no way to fix our country's fiscal imbalances. Thank you. [50:42] Thank you all for your testimony. We'll do five-minute rounds. Mr. Beer, is it accurate that [50:53] Barack Obama deported three million people when he was president? Those are total removals, not people [50:59] deported from the interior. What does that mean? Well, there are people deported from the borders who [51:06] never lived in the United States. Were there people deported inside the United States? Well, I mean, [51:11] I think it's a little bit unfair to compare people deported at the border versus people in the interior. [51:16] I think Jessica would agree with this. Hey, listen, listen. You don't want to answer a question, [51:21] that's fine, but don't tell me what's fair and unfair. Bottom line, did he use judicial warrants to [51:26] deport anybody? When he deported somebody interior, did he have a judicial warrant? No. No. Why? Because [51:34] it's stupid. Mr. Wolfe, tell me what would happen if we adopted his approach. You can't deport anybody [51:44] unless you have a judicial warrant. Would that be effectively the end of deportation? I think it [51:49] would. I mean, if you just look at the- Don't you think that's what they want to do? In part, [51:53] absolutely. Yeah, I think these people over here want to stop deportation. So if you just look at the 1.5 [51:59] or 1.6 million individuals here with a final order of removal, right, they've been through the [52:04] judicial process. They've been to an immigration judge, probably an immigration board of appeals, [52:09] and every time the judge says you don't have a legal right to be here, if you had to get a judicial [52:12] warrant for each one of those, you'd be here for the next 20 years trying to remove those 1.6. [52:18] But when a Democrat says you need a judicial warrant to deport somebody, they're turning- Obama didn't [52:24] do it, did he? Not that I'm aware of, no. No. No, he didn't because it's impossible. [52:28] You just stopped the whole system. You're not trying to reform ICE. You're trying to stop deportations. [52:34] If it were up to you, we'd have more illegal immigrants. I hope people are paying attention to [52:39] what the hell's going on in this country. Sheriff, tell me about what it's like to live [52:45] next to a sanctuary county. Well, we're the only ones that actually work with ICE [52:51] and are able to get people out based on our 287G. Turn them over to ICE. We arrest them for [52:57] criminal violations outside of their immigration status. They come and they pick them up and they're [53:02] gone. And I'll tell you, it's made a big difference. Well, those laws that you're enforcing, [53:05] were they on the books before Trump became president? Yes. So all these laws were there [53:11] before Trump became president and Obama used them. Now, when we use them, all of a sudden, [53:16] we're Nazis. I don't think people see through this. Do you believe sanctuary city policy is bad for [53:24] crime, Mr. Chapman? I do. I think, you know, the ability, if you look at us and compare it to our [53:31] next-door neighbor there, they, I think, maybe have notified ICE maybe about seven times. Last year, [53:36] it was 184 times for us. Those are people that could have been released back to our community, [53:41] that could have committed other crimes, and we don't need that here. It's irresponsible of me to [53:46] to allow that to happen and let these people back in our community. [53:49] Ms. Vaughn, how would you, what's your takeaway about sanctuary city policy? [53:55] What damage has it done to our country, if any? Well, there's the cost of the lives lost [54:03] to illegal aliens who were released by sanctuaries. That's priceless. This case behind me, Jelani, [54:11] is that his name? He should have been deported. Do you agree, Ms. Vaughn? Absolutely, yes. [54:17] You know, you're talking about suing somebody who's been abused by the government? Why don't we sue [54:22] local prosecutors who put this in motion? I'd love to do that. So I'm going to try to find a way to give [54:28] victims a chance to go to court when a local prosecutor puts back on the streets somebody with [54:34] 30 priors. That's some, do you support that idea, empowering people? I do. I think that that would [54:42] be an effective deterrent to sanctuary policies because they're adopted. Make these counties, [54:46] cities pay. Right. They're adopted for political reasons, not public safety reasons. Yeah, [54:51] what are, what's the upside of ignoring federal law and keeping people like this out of federal [54:58] custody? It's a, it's a political choice. So let me ask you this question. Uh, there was a, um, [55:04] clerk of court, Mr. Wolf in Kentucky that did not want to issue a marriage license to a gay couple [55:12] in spite of the fact Supreme Court said that gay marriage was legal and, uh, she went to jail. Do [55:18] you think that's a good, good outcome? Should she have gone to jail for refusing to obey the law? [55:23] I think it's important to obey the law. Yeah, I do too. And when I suggested that the clerk of [55:27] court who had a religious view that she could not in good conscience issue a marriage license to a [55:33] gay couple, even though the law required, she needed to get out of her job. I was, boy, [55:38] what a great guy I was then. Now the shoe's on the other foot. All of a sudden, that's not, [55:45] that's not a good idea. You can, what you want to do is just ignore the laws you don't like. Is that [55:51] where we're headed, Mr. Wolf? I believe it is. Well, let's stop it now. Let's end this madness. [55:56] There is no upside to sanctuary cities. It's all downside. Senator Merkley. [56:03] Well, no upside other than a higher median household income, less poverty, less reliance [56:09] on public assistance, lower unemployment, and safer communities, all of which seem pretty much on the [56:14] upside from my point of view. Mr. Duke, what effect did the big, beautiful bill, as Trump called it, [56:22] have on debt over the 10-year budget window? CBO shows that it adds $4.7 trillion to the deficit. [56:29] That's a pretty whopping sum. It's enormous. For one piece of legislation. And over 30 years? [56:35] It comes to $30 trillion. Wow. With a T. What's our national debt right now? As a share of GDP, [56:42] it's around 100%. And that's about $30 trillion. Yeah. So another $30 trillion. But if interest rates [56:50] are 1% higher, how much more does that add to the debt? I can't believe I'm saying these numbers, [56:54] because they sound like they're from Star Trek, but $50 trillion. Yeah, $50 trillion. Well, [56:58] thanks a lot, folks, for passing a bill that's going to add $30 to $50 trillion to our national debt, [57:04] suppressing our investments in health care, housing, education, public safety, transportation, [57:10] all important things for the welfare of America. And Mr. Duke, how did that bill affect the size of [57:19] the working age population? Yeah. So basically, the combination of that. So first, that bill funded [57:28] ICE a lot, as you showed. And CBO says that it is going to shrink the number of people who are in the [57:36] workforce because they are going to leave the country or be in detention camps. That directly [57:41] shrinks our tax base. Okay. So that has an overall effect on the GDP of our nation? [57:50] Fewer working people means a smaller GDP. Okay. Mr. Beer, in states or cities that have policies, [57:58] referred to as sanctuary policies, but more accurately, that dedicate local police to doing local police work, [58:07] does those locations fully cooperate in detaining somebody when there's a judicial warrant for them? [58:15] Yes, absolutely. They turn over anyone subject to a criminal matter, [58:20] upon notice by the federal government that they have a warrant. So those jurisdictions have entered [58:24] into the FBI federal database, fingerprints, arrest record, what that person's being detained for, [58:31] how long they're being sentenced. Federal government has all that information. Exactly. Yes. [58:35] So they could go and get those individuals anytime they want. And in this case in Virginia, for example, [58:41] the Lake and Riley Act, which they all supported, directed the Department of Homeland Security to get [58:46] those people. And instead of getting those people, they're out on the streets profiling random Hispanic [58:51] workers going to their jobs. So it's a total misdirection to blame the county when the Department of [58:57] Homeland Security isn't even following the law that they passed. [59:00] Why not? Since they could get that warrant and pick up those individuals who have created violent [59:07] crimes. Because the White House has created an arrest quota that's the only metric for success [59:14] for them. How many arrests can you make today? And the fastest way to make arrests is indiscriminate [59:19] raids, indiscriminate profiling of people on the street. That's what's led to this huge jump in the [59:25] number of people and the, frankly, chaos that we're seeing in cities across the country. [59:30] So there was a chart in your longer written testimony showing that only 5% of the individuals [59:37] booked by ICE have ever had a violent criminal conviction. [59:40] Yeah. And not only that, if you look at my written testimony as well, I talk about how the [59:46] Department of Homeland Security has its own internal threat assessment that they assign to each individual [59:53] who comes into their custody. And those people have to prioritize. They actually have a mandate. [59:59] They can't be all political. They have to figure out who is actually a threat. And of those people, [1:00:04] only 10% received the highest threat level. And 70% were deemed by this Department of Homeland Security [1:00:12] to not be a threat at all. So how does that match the campaign rhetoric about we're going to go after [1:00:20] the worst of the worst? Which I think 100% of Americans supported the idea that anyone who had [1:00:25] created a violent crime should be investigated, should be prosecuted, should be, if convicted and [1:00:32] incarcerated, should be deported. But those numbers don't match that. [1:00:36] Great campaign messaging, great messaging for, you know, a $200 million ad campaign by the DHS secretary, [1:00:45] not based in reality at all. On day one of this administration, they rescinded all policies [1:00:51] that forced ICE to focus on violent offenders and people with criminal convictions. [1:00:57] So they did the exact opposite of what they told the citizens they were going to do during the campaign. [1:01:03] It was a lie, just like it was a lie about all the things they said about Renee Goode and Alex [1:01:07] Preddy and all the other people that they've killed over the last year. [1:01:12] And you recommend, do I have time for the last question? My time has expired. [1:01:16] Sure. Go ahead. [1:01:18] You recommend in your testimony that there be a private right of action when [1:01:23] individual civil rights are violated. Now, my understanding is that if local police or state police [1:01:30] violate your civil rights, you have a cause of action against that. Is that correct? [1:01:34] Yeah. Under title 42, section 1983, there's a private right of action against state and local, [1:01:40] but not against the feds. And this is a critically important issue because right now, [1:01:45] they're recruiting all these state and local officers into essentially the ICE framework, [1:01:50] which gives them immunity against all constitutional violations that they carry out while working in [1:01:56] conjunction with the federal government. So we need to expand that to cover federal officers as well, [1:02:02] to make sure we don't have this immunity creep into every police department in America, which is their goal, [1:02:08] including through this bill that we were talking about today. [1:02:11] So when the vice president said ICE agents have absolute immunity in violating people's civil rights, [1:02:18] he was right. Effectively, yes. Right now, as the law stands. [1:02:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [1:02:24] Yes. Just one point of clarification. Is it your position that a nonviolent, [1:02:29] illegal immigrant shouldn't be deported? My position is that we should give people [1:02:35] who are peaceful people a path to citizenship. You endorsed that principle for many years, Senator. [1:02:41] So no matter how many people come? No, it should be based on whether people have [1:02:47] a demonstrable basis to remain in the United States, which is whether they contribute to this [1:02:52] country or whether they're a threat to it. I guess we should have all law enforcement. [1:02:56] I guess what you don't understand threats and I don't want to. I'm familiar with the gang of eight [1:03:01] bill shut down illegal immigration. We did away with the magnets. We're going to give people a chance [1:03:06] who've been here for a long time. Your bill had the exact opposite approach of what this department [1:03:11] of home insecurity is carrying out. Listen, listen, for four years, Biden obliterated the border. [1:03:20] Eleven million people came in and the bill I was working on would have prevented that. [1:03:26] He took everything we were trying to do to stop illegal immigration, be fair to the ones here and [1:03:32] blew a hole in it. And now we've got 11 million more and you want to give them amnesty. They'll never [1:03:38] stop. Senator Gressley. Yeah. United States is a country based on the rule of law and it's against [1:03:46] the law to enter our country without our permission. And I compliment the chairman for having this hearing [1:03:54] and his strong statements and his strong questioning. We all know that our country benefits from legal [1:04:01] immigration and entering our country. This is a budget committee and my questions will basically be [1:04:10] based upon budget impact and cost to our government. Mr. Wolf, there are some legal limitations that [1:04:20] prevent states from completely excluding illegal immigrants from access to some of their government [1:04:27] programs. What are those limitations and what immediate steps considering those limitations can the [1:04:35] federal government take to minimize the fiscal burden of sanctuary jurisdiction? Yeah, I think when we talk [1:04:43] about public benefits, whether they're federal or state benefits, I think, and the chairman I believe [1:04:48] mentioned this earlier, these are strong magnets of why folks decide to come to the United States [1:04:54] illegally. Now, there's a variety of different reasons on on for them to do so. But if they're able to [1:05:00] stay in a jurisdiction that shields them from law enforcement, that provides public benefits, [1:05:05] particularly at the state level, but also at the federal level, both need to be looked at, [1:05:09] that continues to incentivize those individuals to come and to stay. And so when you look at how to [1:05:15] secure the country, it's not only border security, it's a big part of it. But it's also getting at these [1:05:20] pool factors and those public benefits are a big part of that. I think the American people are generous. [1:05:26] I think they want to help people that need true help. But to have folks that come here to the country [1:05:32] illegally, choose to stay illegally, have no protections under US law and continue to get [1:05:37] public benefits, I think that's where the American people draw the line. [1:05:40] Ms. Vaughn, sanctuary jurisdictions frame their policy as squarely a matter of local policy. [1:05:48] But we know these policies have both broader public safety and fiscal effects on areas beyond their border. [1:05:56] So what are some examples of the cost to both the federal government and the state government [1:06:02] caused by sanctuary policies that are often forgotten or overlooked with emphasis upon forgotten or overlooked? [1:06:12] Ms. Well, I think too many of the victims of these policies have been forgotten. [1:06:16] I named a few of them, but these families are still suffering silently. [1:06:26] Another forgotten cost is the cost of providing benefits, taxpayer-funded social services to illegal [1:06:35] alien households. And federal law currently allows states to choose to do that if their legislature [1:06:41] approves it at enormous costs. And some of those dollars are federal dollars. So all of us as Americans [1:06:49] share the cost burden of that arrangement. And Congress can do something about that. [1:06:54] There's also the cost of the erosion of the integrity of our immigration system [1:07:00] when individual states and local jurisdictions can obstruct the enforcement of federal laws [1:07:10] that are passed by Congress without consequence, even though many of these sanctuary policies are [1:07:16] clearly in violation of section 1373 and 1644 of the Immigration Act. And so it's a slap in the face [1:07:26] to legal immigrants to allow these policies that shield individuals from immigration enforcement, most of [1:07:35] whom are criminal aliens. Immigrants don't want to live with these policies either. Something like 70 percent [1:07:42] of the American public is opposed to sanctuary policies for all of these reasons. [1:07:47] Mr. Wolf, if you can answer this question, it's in regard to the 11 million people that came here [1:07:55] under Biden and Harris. Over that period of time, did illegal immigrants seek out sanctuary jurisdictions for [1:08:06] safe harbor? And is there any evidence to back back up your statement? Well, I think if you look historically [1:08:13] at where illegal aliens reside now, they reside all across the United States. But if you were to do a [1:08:19] heat map, you would see them in the majority of them in places like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, [1:08:26] and others that have these sanctuary jurisdictions. So yes, I do believe over time that illegal aliens do do [1:08:34] tend to go to these types of jurisdictions. I got six seconds left. Sheriff Chapman, what are some [1:08:42] examples of state and local cost increases those jurisdictions incur? Well, I look at the funding [1:08:51] that goes to our state and local, the folks that surround us and folks that do not support, you know, [1:08:58] the immigration policies here and the funding that they get. And I think if that was curtailed, [1:09:06] maybe they might look at this a lot more seriously. But it is a cost to us. It's a cost to putting [1:09:12] people out there. You're talking about more homicides. You're talking about we've had our share [1:09:17] locally here and certainly as the chairman brought up. And we've had them in Loudoun County. And it's a [1:09:23] it's a human factor that is really important here. We want to keep our people safe and keep [1:09:27] them alive. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:09:37] Mr. Wolf, if I could start with you. You would agree that in America, people have the right to [1:09:44] peacefully protest under the First Amendment, right? Correct. You would agree that people have the [1:09:49] constitutional right to due process, right? Correct. Would you agree with Kristi Noem, [1:09:55] who characterized Rene Good as a domestic terrorist? Is Rene Good a domestic terrorist in your view? [1:10:02] I've been very clear on this point when that incident occurred, as well as [1:10:06] the pretty incident as well as to let that investigation play out before any comments are [1:10:10] made about the motives of any of the individuals involved, including the law enforcement officers. [1:10:15] So clearly it was wrong to label them domestic terrorists, right? [1:10:19] Again, I don't I'm not at the department. I don't know what the information she had. [1:10:23] If you're asking me my opinion, I would have wait till the investigation play out before I rendered any [1:10:28] decision. So you think it's still an open question as to whether or not they're domestic terrorists? [1:10:32] Again, I'm going to let the investigation play out. It sounds like you do, which I think, [1:10:35] you know, the country has seen the videos, okay? So I find it outrageous that you would sit here today [1:10:43] and hold open the idea that they were domestic terrorists. Their parents and their loved ones deserve [1:10:51] an apology from the U.S. government. And I found it outrageous that you're taking the position [1:10:56] that you are here today. I'm not taking that position. [1:10:57] Yes, you are. By taking no position and leaving on the table the notion that they're domestic terrorists, [1:11:02] you are taking a position. Mr. Beer, thank you for emphasizing the big lie [1:11:09] that what the Trump administration is doing is going after the worst of the worst. As Senator [1:11:15] Merkley pointed out, and as you've shown, that's just not true. I mean, nobody wants people who are [1:11:22] here illegally committing violent crimes. But the overwhelming majority of people who are in [1:11:29] detention right now, by ICE's own admission, pose no risk to public safety. Is that right? [1:11:35] That's right. Over 70 percent were given no threat level at all. [1:11:38] They could be released right now without a threat to the public. [1:11:41] Yeah. So this is just such a big lie. I mean, that's what we're seeing playing out [1:11:46] in this forum and out of the White House from people like Stephen Miller and the President of [1:11:49] the United States. Could you talk about another big lie? We do know that the so-called Big Beautiful [1:11:55] Bill, as Republicans called it, increased the debt massively, like over four trillion bucks, [1:12:01] right? They gave tax cuts to billionaires permanently. They cut [1:12:06] health programs. They cut food safety, food programs. They had a walloping increase for ICE, [1:12:14] like seven times its regular budget. And at the same time, we hear people like Stevie Miller and others [1:12:22] claiming that it's actually immigrants who are the cause of increasing our deficits and debt. In fact, [1:12:30] they've said that immigration is the cause of the growing national debt and immigrants take more [1:12:36] from the country than they contribute. Now, Mr. Beer, you've looked at this question very closely. [1:12:41] Could you just respond to what I think is the second big lie? [1:12:44] Yeah. Over the last 30 years, we looked at all the government budgets, federal, state, and local [1:12:49] combined, immigrants reduced deficits by 14 and a half trillion dollars, which is about a third of [1:12:55] all of the total deficits during that period of time. And it's easy to understand why, because they [1:13:00] work at 12 percentage points higher than the national average. They use less benefits because they're [1:13:06] subject to constraints, unique barriers to applying for those benefits, in particular, Social Security [1:13:13] and Medicare, where those are by far our largest programs, and they're not eligible for those at [1:13:19] all, if they're here in the country illegally, or if they came legally and they don't have a sufficient [1:13:23] work history to qualify. So you have clear reasons for believing that they are reducing the deficits [1:13:31] and debt, they are a benefit to this country, and we need more people who are going to contribute in the [1:13:35] future as our population ages. Could you amplify a little more on the issue of Medicare and Social [1:13:42] Security? Because those, you know, trust funds in just a couple years, there won't, you know, be [1:13:49] enough to pay out full on the dollar for Social Security and Medicare? As you pointed out, there are [1:13:53] many immigrants that are paying in to that, but not paying out. So could you just elaborate on that? [1:13:58] According to the Social Security Administration, we need about 35 million more workers in order to [1:14:05] keep revenues equal to expenses by the middle of the 2030s. So we are at a position right now where [1:14:11] immigration is not going to solve it, obviously, it's not going to solve it, but it is moving us [1:14:16] in the right direction. These are people who are showing up, they're ready to work, they're often [1:14:20] prime age individuals who are ready to enter the labor force. So it's a huge benefit fiscally to the [1:14:25] United States to have these people who want to contribute to our country. Thank you, and thank you [1:14:30] for exposing two of the big lies coming out of the Trump administration. Thank you. Thank you. [1:14:37] The information we have is that 64% of the people in counter-advised are either convicted or pending [1:14:45] criminal charges. So if somebody's wrong, we'll find out who's lying. [1:14:49] Hi, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, let's talk about some realities here. The ranking member talked about [1:14:57] the funding for ICE rose dramatically this first year of the Trump administration. Well, this is why, [1:15:04] because for the previous four years, President Biden and the Democrats opened up the border. [1:15:10] Now, I like this chart. First of all, save the president's life. But the other reason I like [1:15:16] this chart is it shows cause and effect. And the catalyst for this explosion in illegal immigration [1:15:27] really was deferred action on childhood arrival. That's what sparked this. That created the first [1:15:32] incentive for people to come to this country illegally. That started the first wave. Now, [1:15:37] back in 2014, these were massive numbers. I remember President Obama calling 2,000 a day [1:15:42] was a humanitarian crisis. I think under Biden, we had over 14,000 in a day average. [1:15:52] So, Mr. Wolf, you were acting secretary trying to clean up the Obama mess. I remember leading a [1:16:00] delegation down to McAllen, Texas during the Obama administration where we looked at the facility [1:16:05] they set up and everybody, Democrat, Republican, were singing the praises of DHS for kind of skirting [1:16:11] the rules and establishing a facility that would keep the children safe as they were being encountered [1:16:16] and detained across the border because of the incentive of DACA. A couple of years later on the [1:16:22] Trump administration, that exact same facility, all of a sudden now the Democrats are calling that [1:16:27] kids in cages. I mean, first of all, you just confirmed the fact that that was the exact same [1:16:32] facility that we praised in 2014 and all of a sudden, 2017, those were kids in cages. [1:16:38] That's correct. Those were border patrol facilities. [1:16:40] I think out of your department, last year, we got a memo that said of the millions, [1:16:52] and nobody knows exactly how many millions came in here, the wide open border. I mean, this is, [1:16:56] I mean, so out of whack. 650,000 people that are large, that are at large in America have committed [1:17:05] crimes. 15,000 murderers, 20,000 rapists. Ms. Spear, you're shaking your head. [1:17:17] They're not at large. The murderers are in prison. They're in prison where they should be. [1:17:21] They're not detained. Yes, they're detained by the state. They're not detained by ICE. They're in prisons [1:17:29] ready to be deported. Ms. Vaughn, have you kept track of how many people have been murdered, [1:17:36] raped, victims of vehicular homicide at the hands of somebody that the Biden administration led in [1:17:42] this country? I wish there were a way to do that, but so many law enforcement agencies do not keep [1:17:47] track of the immigration status of people in their custody. They don't want to know. Would you say it's [1:17:52] in the hundreds? Ms. Yes. Thousands? Ms. Yes. Tens of thousands? It's one data point that I do know [1:18:02] is that at a certain point a few years ago, ICE determined that there were 10,000 [1:18:09] deportable criminal aliens who were released by sanctuary policies, who subsequently reoffended [1:18:16] within 18 months. So where is the outrage on the other side of the aisle to those victims and their [1:18:23] families? You know, we had a hearing in Homeland Security, and they were talking about the trained [1:18:30] activists. The number was very large, but I couldn't believe it. Trained activists that are trained to [1:18:39] basically interfere and obstruct with the legal law enforcement actions. And I made the comment, [1:18:47] I can't imagine encouraging my supporters, first of all, to get trained to obstruct justice, [1:18:53] much less then go ahead and do it, put yourself in harm's way, knowing people are going to potentially [1:18:59] get hurt. Well, people did get hurt. Three people lost their lives. And now the other side exploits [1:19:08] those martyrs while they completely ignore the thousands. And let's face it, it's thousands [1:19:14] of the Lake and Riley's and those individuals. Where's the outrage to the crimes committed [1:19:21] by that massive wave? And of course, I didn't want to have to spend money on ice. But what are you [1:19:29] going to do? And trying to clean up this mess? I mean, it's difficult enough for you to clean up [1:19:36] Obama's mess. Try and clean up Biden's mess. And rather than getting help from the other side, [1:19:42] no, they trained activists to obstruct trying to clean up that mess. That's the reality of the situation. [1:19:48] That's why I agree. And I appreciate this hearing. We have to end sanctuary cities because it's just [1:19:52] another incentive, a massive incentive for more illegal immigration. And the next time Democrats [1:19:58] get in power, they'll open it up again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Whitehouse. [1:20:02] Thank you, Chairman. Let me first observe for my colleagues here that sanctuary city is a political [1:20:10] term. It's not a technical term as your own witness has acknowledged. And it's important to get things [1:20:21] right. So I want to just describe what's happening in Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, [1:20:27] our federal district court has decided that local and state police officers can be held liable if [1:20:38] they hold a person under an ICE detainer without a proper warrant, that the warrant requirement actually [1:20:49] applies. And particularly when you're dealing with someone's freedom, detention. And that decision [1:20:58] is not a fluke. It has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [1:21:04] So in my state, the District of Rhode Island from a federal point of view, and in my circuit, [1:21:09] the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, it is binding law that state and [1:21:17] local officials who hold somebody under an ICE detainer where ICE hasn't bothered to get a warrant [1:21:24] can be held civilly liable. So we need to face that fact because that's actually binding federal law. [1:21:33] The second comment I want to make is about the behavior of ICE agents when they operate in Rhode [1:21:39] Island. Those of you on the Judiciary Committee will remember me describing the set of affairs [1:21:44] to then-Secretary Noem. So masked agents appear in the Rhode Island Superior Court [1:21:52] courthouse. They are operating in violation of an agreement that they have with the court not to [1:22:01] operate in that courthouse. They are operating with cameras in violation of a courthouse rule [1:22:13] that forbids taking photographs. They are pursuing a 30-plus-year-old individual whom they have mixed up [1:22:24] with a high school intern who is interning for one of our state court judges. The state court judge [1:22:35] is going to take the intern back to high school, so they walk out to the judge's car. If the ICE [1:22:44] agents hadn't bothered to figure out who the judges were in the courthouse, when they got to the car, [1:22:51] parked in a judges-only spot, they had the information necessary to deduce that this might be a judge. [1:23:00] But rather than accept the judge's representations that he was returning an intern to the high school, [1:23:09] I'll take out the full f-bomb because they used the actual full word. They told the judge, [1:23:16] we're going to smash your effing windows and we're going to drag you out of your effing car [1:23:24] if you don't turn over this intern to us. And then they grabbed the intern and they took him into [1:23:35] another car for half an hour and figured out that the high school intern was not the 30-plus-year-old [1:23:40] person they purported to be looking for. Why would regular law enforcement, why would those sheriffs [1:23:51] in the courthouse want to cooperate with an agency whose law enforcement behavior [1:24:01] is so wildly irresponsible and unprofessional? It's hard to imagine. And when I asked Secretary Noem [1:24:10] about the problem of deconfliction, I think pretty much everybody in law enforcement understands what [1:24:15] deconfliction is. Even if the state police aren't cooperating with the Bristol police, [1:24:21] when they run in to do a raid in Bristol, they will let the Bristol police know that they're going to do [1:24:25] a raid so that when calls come in about cars in the street or people with guns or whatever, the local [1:24:31] police department know what's going on. Deconfliction is elementary stuff that is taught to law [1:24:37] enforcement. And yet ICE refuses to deconflict. And the secretary didn't know the difference between [1:24:46] deconfliction and cooperation. So clearly there's a massive hole in the way in which DHS thinks about [1:24:54] this stuff. And it is in that environment that I think a lot of sensible decisions are being made by [1:25:01] local police chiefs about whether they want to cooperate with an organization that behaves in [1:25:08] unreasonable and unprofessional ways, that threatens judges with violence, and that refuses to even [1:25:17] give them the courtesy of deconflicting when they're operating in their jurisdiction. Thank you, [1:25:23] Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cornett. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think President Trump has done it again, [1:25:34] exercising almost magical powers, turning Democrats into budget hawks. It's an amazing thing to behold. [1:25:42] And of course, they reflexively oppose anything and everything that he proposes, whether it's [1:25:48] standing to honor law enforcement and public safety and not illegal immigrants, whether it's eliminating [1:25:55] the threat of nuclear weapons and the number one state sponsor of terrorism. They take the side of the [1:26:01] state sponsor of terrorism. It's just amazing to me to behold. Sheriff, I was struck by the ranking [1:26:15] member's introduction to his comments. He said, let the police be the police. And I assume that would [1:26:23] extend to other law enforcement officers like you and the sheriffs and other folks who maintain public [1:26:28] safety. But is the collective role and job of law enforcement officers like yourself to protect public [1:26:35] safety? It is. And I think we all need to work together. One of the things that was just left out of [1:26:41] the testimony just provided is the fact that communication is important to this. And we work [1:26:47] very well with our counterparts. And a lot of times it's because the chiefs are driven by the politicians [1:26:54] above them that don't allow them to actually work properly and cooperatively with our federal and other [1:27:00] local counterparts. When you have that level of communication, you can work these issues out in [1:27:05] advance before you have a problem like, you know, what the senator was just saying. [1:27:09] Well, a lot of it boils down to information sharing, correct? [1:27:13] That's correct. [1:27:14] And even where in the Senator Whitehouse's circuit, the judges said that maybe local law enforcement [1:27:24] can't keep people beyond their jail sentence without some other additional warrant. Let me ask you to go [1:27:34] out on a limb here a little bit. If the two individuals who tragically died in Minneapolis, [1:27:41] who interfered with law enforcement operation by ICE, if there had been the kind of cooperation that you [1:27:46] demonstrate in Loudoun County and the sort of cooperation that you've advocated for here, [1:27:53] do you think it's more likely than not that those two individuals will still be alive? [1:27:57] Well, I can't really speak directly to that. What I can tell you is that the cooperation that we've had [1:28:02] actually works well. And I do believe that that would have had an impact there. When you're talking about [1:28:07] 287G, and again, Senator Whitehouse's information, we have an agreement with ICE and our people are [1:28:13] trained in order to hold onto people for a little bit up to 48 hours after they're incarcerated for a [1:28:18] completely separate offense with us, okay? That's a memorandum of understanding between the feds and [1:28:23] the local law enforcement. That's right. And that way they're already in custody. All we got to do is [1:28:27] turn them over. They don't have to come to the community to do, very often, to do any enforcement [1:28:31] operations. So it actually works out well. And to get on the front side of this and to have that [1:28:36] level of communication prevents that kind of thing. But if you have politicians that are directing you [1:28:41] to act in a particular way, it really, you know, really messes up the system here. And I think that's [1:28:47] that's largely the problem. We all want to work together. We work with everybody, all of our federal [1:28:52] counterparts, all of our state and local counterparts, which I believe is one of the reasons we got the [1:28:56] lowest one of the lowest crime rates in the entire country. And you have, as a result of that cooperation, [1:29:01] you haven't experienced any of the tragic consequences that we saw in Minneapolis. [1:29:06] That we've actually had, before that, we actually had people that were, had not been arrested by us [1:29:12] that committed crimes. But anybody that's been arrested by us and turned over to ICE is not a [1:29:17] problem. They're out of our hands. And Mr. Wolf, you were, of course, former Secretary of Homeland Security, [1:29:25] and our Democratic colleagues say that they won't fund the Department of Homeland Security [1:29:31] and alleviate these long waiting periods that citizens are experiencing at airports all around [1:29:37] the country. They won't fund FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, until federal warrants [1:29:46] are required. Now, will you explain how a final order of deportation is a civil matter? And that [1:29:55] requiring, after that due process has already been exhausted, why requiring a criminal warrant would be [1:30:04] not only unnecessary, but also destructive of ICE's ability to actually enforce immigration law? [1:30:12] Mr. Absolutely. An alien will go before an immigration judge through, [1:30:16] towards the end of their, their dependency of their, their hearing. They will go before an immigration [1:30:23] judge, and they will rule on, on their case. If they want to appeal that, they'll go to the [1:30:27] Immigration Board of Appeals, and they, they could perhaps even appeal that outside of that. [1:30:32] And in every case, a judge, through the due process, they'll have an attorney with them, [1:30:37] through the due process, says you don't have a legal right to remain in the United States, [1:30:41] and it's time for you to self-deport. It's time for you to leave. And we know, as I indicated earlier, [1:30:46] about 1.6 million of those individuals have said, no, I'm going to defy that order. I'm going to stay [1:30:50] here in the United States. I don't want to go back to my home country. And then ICE is coming in at [1:30:55] the very end of this process, enforcement removal officers, to effectuate that judge's order, [1:31:01] to understand and to remove that individual from the country. And in some cases, they are in their [1:31:07] house. And so they have a final order of removal. They have reasonable suspicion that that individual [1:31:11] is in that house. They have likely observed that individual go in and out of that house, [1:31:15] and they are there to remove that individual. It's very different than a judicial warrant where you're [1:31:20] just going in to arrest someone who's then going into the due process system, has to go before a [1:31:25] judge, have their case heard, all the facts. That is not what is occurring when you have a final order [1:31:31] of removal. Thank you. Senator Levine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone, thank you all for being here [1:31:38] today. And I just want to begin by reminding everyone, this is the first hearing of the Budget Committee in [1:31:46] this Congress. This is the first one. Thirteen months into this Congress. You're saying second, [1:31:57] sir? I appreciate that, Chairman. Second. Look, when we talk about what's happening to constituents [1:32:05] across the country right now, you'd think there'd be some hearings about the high cost of everything. [1:32:12] There are detainers, 287. I certainly hope we get to that place. But since we're here today, [1:32:25] and we're not talking about the high costs of groceries or how expensive it is to get a birthday [1:32:30] cake for your kids, gas prices through the roof, housing unaffordable. My Republican colleagues want [1:32:38] to have a conversation about the one big, beautiful bill that they passed, which, by the way, [1:32:43] we've now learned from the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation increased the federal [1:32:47] deficit by $3.4 trillion. Trillion. That's a lot of money. While failing to provide real relief to middle and [1:33:01] low-income families. So, look, the proposals tied to the package and its broader agenda included cuts [1:33:08] to programs like food, like SNAP, providing support to millions of working families just to put food [1:33:14] on the table. So, as we sit here in the Senate Budget Committee, yes or no, and my question is to [1:33:21] Mr. Duke, does focusing federal attention on punishing so-called sanctuary cities meaningfully [1:33:28] address the affordability crisis Americans are facing? No. Does it lower health costs? [1:33:34] for a child with diabetes? No. Does it make the gas that people put at a gas station into their vehicles [1:33:42] more affordable to get to work or does it make it more expensive? It has nothing to do with gas. [1:33:50] Does it help a single mom afford to put food on the table? No. Does it address the medical solvency [1:33:56] issues to make sure seniors can count on their benefits? It addresses them by making them worse. [1:34:02] Does it help a young couple who wants to buy a home and start a family maybe afford that house? [1:34:09] It does not help. Well, what the hearing discusses does not include anything that I just asked about [1:34:17] and the constituents I've been talking to at home are saying when's Congress going to get off their [1:34:21] rears and do something about the prices that we're hitting every day as opposed to just protecting the [1:34:28] Epstein class and not demanding that these documents and everything else get released. So Mr. Wolfe, [1:34:35] you had responsibilities in a few of these places and I appreciate the responses you were providing to one [1:34:41] of my colleagues now about the process that you believe is fair that allows ICE agents to go into [1:34:47] someone's house without a judicial warrant. It's hard for me to continue to listen to justification on [1:34:56] how American citizens can have their homes broken into without a judicial warrant. I don't understand [1:35:04] this. That American citizens, it's okay for an American citizen to have their windows on their car [1:35:11] bashed in. That's not okay. And with all these conversations about AI and some of these companies [1:35:18] now that are working with ICE for facial recognition, which I have concerns about. [1:35:25] What I don't understand now is how the Department of Homeland Security has access to the best facial [1:35:31] recognition AI. DHS says they know who the violent criminals are. Their words, they say they know who [1:35:38] they are. And if they only had access to facial recognition, they could go find all the violent [1:35:43] criminals. Well, why aren't they doing it? It's one unanswered question after another. It's one [1:35:51] American right after another that is being torn apart. And there's justification now to say, [1:35:56] we can pound in your door. We can go in your house if you're an American citizen, [1:36:01] or we can bust out your windows and drag your butt out of a car as an American citizen. I just don't [1:36:06] get it, Mr. Chairman. And I hope we have some hearings about getting answers to that. Because I [1:36:11] think there's agreement between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. We don't want American [1:36:16] citizens being treated this way. None of us. We want to go after the violent criminals. [1:36:21] We both agree with this. I certainly hope that we can have a thorough and thoughtful hearing [1:36:29] and get some answers to that as well. And that everyone agrees, stop doing that. [1:36:33] Mr. President, tell your folks to stop doing that. I hope now that Senator Mullins, who's going to be [1:36:38] Secretary of Health or Homeland Security, maybe he'll get these people to stop all the bad [1:36:43] shit and to go after the bad people. Then we'll be in a better place. Thank you for the time, [1:36:49] Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Yeah, we'll have a hearing on affordability. Ms. Vaughn, [1:36:56] what percentage of illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities or just in general receive federal benefits? [1:37:04] I don't have numbers for specific sanctuary jurisdictions. Yeah, just in general. [1:37:09] But nationally, it's more than 60 percent. So more than 60 percent of illegal immigrants [1:37:15] receive federal benefits and it has absolutely no budget impact. Well, that's interesting. Senator Lee. [1:37:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Thanks to each of you for being here. [1:37:26] I want to say at the outset a couple of things. First, I'm not familiar with many countries [1:37:31] that are asked to simply ignore their own immigration laws, separate and apart from [1:37:36] their criminal laws, just their own immigration laws. Those countries that do exist or may have [1:37:41] existed over time don't remain countries very long because things happen when you don't enforce [1:37:46] your own immigration laws. We don't have to travel very far in our own continent or throughout Europe [1:37:51] or Asia or Africa to see what would happen if one of us entered one of those countries, [1:37:56] took up residence there unlawfully. It likely wouldn't end well for us. [1:38:00] I also want to observe that there's been several mentioned here today about the difference between [1:38:04] state authority and federal authority in reference to states' rights. I don't like using the term [1:38:08] state's rights not only because it conjures George Wallace's image, also because it's inappropriate. [1:38:13] States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. States have authority. It's the [1:38:17] inverse polar opposite of a right. We have parallel authority with parallel sovereign jurisdictions in this [1:38:24] country. The U.S. government, the one headquartered in this city where we sit today, has authority over [1:38:31] our immigration laws, laws governing naturalization, who may enter the country, who may stay under what [1:38:36] terms and conditions or for what period of time. We do need our federal government to be able to [1:38:42] undertake those efforts, to perform those efforts well. We've adopted a number of techniques to procure [1:38:49] and encourage the cooperation of state and local jurisdictions. Sometimes those have been ignored, [1:38:54] and that is unfortunate. I'll get more to that in a moment. But look, we're exploring something today [1:39:01] that is not without cost. The cost of an unsecured border and unprecedented illegal immigration during [1:39:09] the four years of the Biden administration remain both stunning and debilitating. The Trump administration, [1:39:15] for its part, quite fortunately, has done a very effective job at securing the border and beginning [1:39:22] the process of deportations on a very large scale. But there's a lot of work left to be done to deport [1:39:29] the many millions who remain in this country for us to be able to restore law and order. People who, [1:39:35] if they did immigrate to almost any other country on earth, would be in a whole lot of trouble and [1:39:39] would be facing those things. And yet we're made to feel as if we would be doing the wrong thing by [1:39:44] enforcing our immigration laws as such. That important work that's being done, carried out every day [1:39:52] by brave men and women in federal law enforcement, continues to be obstructed across the country [1:39:57] as radical leftists who are proudly, aggressively supporting sanctuary cities trying to [1:40:05] try to undermine the enforcement of federal law. These Democrat-controlled state and local governments [1:40:13] have, in many instances, been working actively, aggressively through these sanctuary city policies [1:40:19] to subvert not just federal law but the enforcement of federal law by duly sworn and authorized federal [1:40:26] law enforcement officials. And they are trying to do one thing by enforcing the law, which is to [1:40:34] prioritize the well-being of American citizens and the safety of the American homeland. This terrible [1:40:40] reality that we face is highly offensive to the citizens of the United States, especially those [1:40:46] who have done the work to immigrate to this country legally and to do it the right way. Now, believe [1:40:54] it or not, not that long ago, Democrats supported and President Clinton himself signed into law [1:40:59] the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, commonly known as IRIRA. [1:41:06] That act expanded border enforcement capabilities and helped bring immigration under control at a time [1:41:14] when illegal immigration to the United States was far less frequent, far less of a large problem than [1:41:21] it has been in recent years. In 2016, President Trump ran for president and was elected on a promise to [1:41:27] stop illegal immigration. Democrats intending to oppose the president at every turn decided to depart in [1:41:37] that moment from their previous more common sense position and to go all in on the belief that our [1:41:44] nation should effectively have no border at all, that borders are sort of aspirational suggestions [1:41:50] that we can look the other way on. That brings us to the topic of today's hearing, [1:41:55] the cost of sanctuary cities. So what is that cost? Well, the cost is clear. It is waste, fraud, [1:42:02] and abuse by illegal aliens who shouldn't be within our borders. We saw this in Minnesota, [1:42:07] and we've seen it elsewhere. The cost is clear more than anything else. It's the loss of human life, [1:42:13] innocent human life, innocent American lives at the hands of illegal aliens who have perpetrated [1:42:20] some of the most heinous attacks on innocent American lives in recent memory. And these are [1:42:27] entirely preventable, entirely avoidable crimes, crimes that would not have happened but for our open [1:42:33] border policies facilitated by sanctuary cities. The cost is clear. It's also the increased additional [1:42:41] avoidable tax burden on state, local, and federal taxpayers who are expected to subsidize and in fact [1:42:47] are forced to subsidize problematic social welfare programs that illegal aliens have obtained [1:42:53] eligibility for through fraudulent means or various loopholes. To say nothing of the education system, [1:43:00] which because of a supreme court ruling and pleiler veto four and a half decades ago, states are also [1:43:06] forced by no choice of their own to supply that additional benefit as as well. So look, the cost is [1:43:14] clear. It's all over the place. We can't ignore it. And by continuing to ignore it, we create additional [1:43:21] problems. Let's not dress this up as something that it is not and never can be. Thank you. Thank you, [1:43:28] Mr. Chair. I want to echo the sentiment that several of my colleagues have mentioned earlier in this [1:43:34] hearing in more than just being surprised that this is, well, I guess the second hearing for this [1:43:40] Congress, but the first of this calendar year. It is not about the federal budget, not about an economic [1:43:46] outlook, but I understand why the Republican majority wouldn't want to talk about that. Not while gas prices [1:43:53] are spiking because of an unauthorized war against Iran. Instead, we're here to discuss how off base this [1:44:06] whole sanctuary conversation really is. Now, I know it's a area of passion for the chairman. We've debated [1:44:15] sanctuary policies on the floor of the Senate. As I've objected to the legislation he has presented that [1:44:24] would promote federal overreach in my opinion. I think part of my frustration comes from the fact [1:44:30] that there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what sanctuary policies are and what sanctuary policies [1:44:36] are not. Sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws in sanctuary cities or states. They do not [1:44:46] keep ICE and other federal agencies from entering a city or a state to arrest violent criminals as they're [1:44:53] released from prison. Sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the [1:45:01] federal government and that the federal government cannot unilaterally decide to co-op state and local [1:45:08] authorities or their resources, precious resources, in carrying out these responsibilities. True, there's [1:45:14] some states and local jurisdictions who may choose to coordinate collaborate, but there's many who don't for [1:45:22] their justifiable reasons. It means carrying out immigration enforcement activities is ICE's purview [1:45:32] while respecting state and local law enforcement agencies to make their own decisions about how to [1:45:39] focus and direct their limited resources that they deem best protects and serves their constituents. It [1:45:49] means prohibiting federal overreach through policies that have been upheld by the courts. [1:45:53] And so I'm glad several of my Republican colleagues are here to listen to me quote Justice Scalia in the case [1:46:02] Prince v. United States. Quote, the federal government may neither issue directives require the states to [1:46:09] address particular problems nor command the state's officers or those of their political subdivisions [1:46:17] to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. End quote. Look folks, we can have disagreements on [1:46:27] policy, but the fundamental misunderstanding about what sanctuary policies are has led to the promotion of [1:46:36] enforcement actions across the country that have become damaging to our communities and to our local [1:46:42] economies. So it seems to me that this debate has not really been about public safety. Because if it were, [1:46:53] we could also be talking about how the data shows that sanctuary policies actually make communities safer, [1:46:59] healthier, and more prosperous. That's right. The evidence shows, the research shows, sanctuary jurisdictions [1:47:05] have lower crime rates, higher median household income, less poverty, less reliance on public assistance, [1:47:15] higher labor force participation, and lower unemployment. That's right. Seems like sanctuary cities [1:47:26] are helping to make America great. I said it. So let's stop perpetuating the lies. Let's ensure that ICE [1:47:39] and CBP agents are accountable and conduct their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Let's allow [1:47:50] local law enforcement leaders to do what they deem is best for public safety. And Mr. Chairman, just so you [1:47:59] know, I'm not exaggerating in my claims here. I'd like to submit for the record articles and reports from [1:48:05] researchers at the University of Texas Austin, from the Center for American Progress, from the University [1:48:11] of Arizona, University of North Carolina, and the American Immigration Council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. [1:48:22] Chairman. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wolf, thank you for your service. [1:48:34] Why, in your opinion, do so many, not all, but so many of my Democratic colleagues believe in open borders? [1:48:45] Well, that's a good question. I think it's it's a couple of different fronts. One, it would be they [1:48:51] don't believe in immigration law. They don't like enforcement. They don't like removing other individuals. [1:48:57] And they believe that there are some that believe that anyone and everyone should be able to come to [1:49:01] the U.S. whether they apply for protections under U.S. law or not. And then there's some probably that [1:49:08] would like to see more voters in the U.S. as well. Ms. Vaughn, some of my colleagues for whom I have great [1:49:17] respect, believe that the Tenth Amendment allows local governments to ignore federal immigration law [1:49:28] and implement sanctuary policy. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial quotas represent a pernicious [1:49:40] form of racial discrimination. Can local governments ignore that ruling under the Tenth Amendment? [1:49:47] Well, the Tenth Amendment is about— Can they—can—just answer my question, please, ma'am. [1:49:54] The Tenth Amendment is about commandeering, and so it's not really appropriate to this because— [1:49:59] Is the answer yes or no, ma'am? Could you ask me again? Because I—I don't understand the relevance to—I'm [1:50:06] sorry, I don't— Secretary Wolfe, you heard my question. Under the guise of the Tenth Amendment, [1:50:13] can local governments ignore Supreme Court ruling? I don't believe they can. Okay. Women have the right [1:50:22] to vote in America by statute and by constitutional interpretation. Under the guise of the Tenth Amendment, [1:50:31] can local governments just ignore that and—and prohibit women from voting? No. Okay. [1:50:37] Mr. Duke, you worked for President Biden and Vice President Harris, didn't you? Yes. And I listened [1:50:47] carefully to your testimony. Today, you expressed—well, you offered the opinion that the One Big [1:50:53] Beautiful Bill is terrible in part because it will cause deficits. Is that right? Yes. [1:50:59] Isn't it a fact that the profligacy of President Biden caused 9 percent inflation in America? No. Okay. [1:51:13] Isn't it a fact that if President Biden had discovered life on Mars when he was president, [1:51:20] he would have immediately sent it money? I don't believe so. Oh, you don't? Okay. Well, [1:51:28] I appreciate your newly found fiscal conservatism. Mr. Beer, you seem to be a very smart guy, [1:51:40] and you seem to be a nice enough guy. Thank you, Senator. You seem smart as well, Jack. [1:51:48] Don't—don't— That was the chairman, not me. Don't you think your hyperbolic statements [1:51:58] undermine your credibility? What hyperbolic statement did I make? On February the 11th, [1:52:09] 2026, you posted on Blueski, quote, my words—or your words, not mine. The Democrats' video telling [1:52:23] service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to [1:52:33] refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still [1:52:41] obviously unethical and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law, end quote. [1:52:48] Did I read that correctly? I believe you did. Do you disagree with [1:52:52] it? You think people should do unethical things in their capacity? On December the 31st of 2025, [1:53:01] you posted to—in front of— But wait, wait. Do you disagree with what I said? [1:53:06] In front of—let me finish my question. I'm sorry. You answered, sir. Sure. [1:53:09] In front of God and country, you said, quote, they, referring to Republicans, think they can troll [1:53:17] their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing, end quote. Your—your words, not mine. Did I read that [1:53:27] correctly? That was in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about advocating 100 million [1:53:34] deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their own account. 100 million deportations would [1:53:40] be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the [1:53:48] Department of Homeland Security— And you don't think this is hyperbolic? Give me 30 more seconds. [1:53:53] I think advocating 100 million deportations is— I'm having fun here, Mr. Chairman. —ethnic cleansing. [1:53:58] On February 5th, you quoted the—you said the following on Blusky. Your time's up. Quote, [1:54:05] these are all good, but there's no enforcement mechanism—I'm sorry. Let me try a better one. On [1:54:13] March 2nd, you said, quote, if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda—no hyperbolic there—the [1:54:22] nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the [1:54:29] ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the Constitution. [1:54:35] They are much braver. They put their names on their rulings, [1:54:38] and they stand behind their—their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, [1:54:42] I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport U.S.-born citizens, people born here. [1:54:48] They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda [1:54:55] intended to reduce the population of the United States, including U.S.-born people. [1:55:00] Thank you. [1:55:00] So these are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. I appreciate your research. [1:55:05] Here's the good news. [1:55:05] What planet did you just— Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. What planet did you just parachute in from? [1:55:11] No, no, no. Hey, guys. [1:55:12] You trigger my gag reflex, Mr. Bayer. [1:55:16] So we got a process here, and it's good to know you don't have an agenda. Senator King. [1:55:25] Mr. Chair, thanks for doing this, and Sheriff, welcome. I've got a Virginian at the table, [1:55:29] and that's why I wanted to come. My Sheriff, in his testimony, said it is important to distinguish [1:55:34] criminal aliens who pose a threat to our community from immigrants here legally. All of us agree with [1:55:40] that. We should try to find that balance. I don't think we're balanced right now. [1:55:45] I've been here 13 years. I wish we'd have a hearing about the positive impact immigrants make on the [1:55:50] United States. We've never had that hearing in this committee or the HELP committee or any others. [1:55:55] When we have hearings, it's about immigrants doing bad things rather than about the positive— [1:55:59] Well, y'all were in charge. Why didn't you have them? [1:56:01] Well, can I take my time? Can I take my time? Because I think what happens— [1:56:06] I think what happens when the only hearings about immigrants are about crime, [1:56:11] and we have a president who calls people's countries shithole countries, [1:56:15] I've got a lot of immigrants in the United States and in Virginia who feel like they're [1:56:19] being targeted. And let's talk about positives. And I'm going to use Loudoun as an example. The [1:56:23] Sheriff is rightly proud of Loudoun County. 420,000 people in the last census is probably coming up to 450 [1:56:30] now. It is not only one of the safest jurisdictions in the United States. It's also, by recent count, [1:56:37] the wealthiest county in the United States. And guess what? 25 percent of the population and climbing [1:56:43] is immigrant. 25 percent. Safe, economically successful immigrant. And I also applaud [1:56:51] this Sheriff's Department. If you have something to do, or if you don't have something to do on Halloween [1:56:55] sometime, go to the Halloween parade in Leesburg and you'll see the Sheriff's deputies helping order. [1:57:03] And they all wear uniforms with their names on them. None of them wear masks. The county's been an [1:57:07] innovator in body camera, in body camera use. Wow, what a novel concept. I like the professionalism [1:57:15] that I see with your Sheriff's Department. And I think we could use it at the federal level. [1:57:20] Here's an issue about sanctuary cities in the Trump administration. DHS, Mr. Chair, you might like this [1:57:26] one. DHS in May put out a list of sanctuary cities and they included 34 Virginia communities, cities and [1:57:33] counties on that list. It provoked laughter in Virginia. There were cities that were not cities [1:57:41] but counties. There were counties that were not counties but cities. There were jurisdictions that [1:57:47] have virtually no immigrants whatsoever listed as sanctuary communities. Here was my favorite. [1:57:54] The city of Duffield, Virginia. Now, if you don't know where Duffield is, you're not alone. [1:57:59] Scott County, deep in Appalachia, 0.6 square miles, 76 people, not a single immigrant, [1:58:08] not even a police department, sanctuary city. Virginia laughed the DHS out of the office. [1:58:16] And so in October, this was in August. I'm sorry, this was in May. In August, DOJ came back and did a [1:58:24] new list, number of sanctuary cities in Virginia, zero. They redid the list in October, number of sanctuary [1:58:31] cities in Virginia, zero. Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce DHS's bogus sanctuary cities list as [1:58:38] to enter the record. Without objection. And then, Mr. Chair, my last question is, look, [1:58:43] I'm not on judiciary and the bill that you have about imposing liability on local officials would [1:58:50] suggest that the only fault in this area lies on local officials. Now, if you have a markup, [1:58:56] it'll be in judiciary and I'm not on it. But my question is sort of for you, isn't what's good for [1:59:01] the goose good for the gander? What about all the times when I was governor of Virginia, 2006, 2010, [1:59:07] and my DOC, Department of Corrections or local law enforcement, told ICE and the federal [1:59:15] immigration agencies, three years under President Bush, one year under President Obama, [1:59:19] that, hey, we've got somebody here who is not lawfully here. Please come pick them up. [1:59:23] And ICE didn't show up. And ICE still is not showing up. So often, the bad examples, including one of the [1:59:30] ones in Fairfax recently, repeated instances of ICE having this person in their purview, in their grasp, [1:59:38] and then letting them go. So wouldn't it be, I mean, if you're going to do a bill and blame cities for [1:59:44] this and try to impose liability on their local taxpayers, what about letting people sue ICE when [1:59:51] hardworking local officials and sheriffs let folks know, hey, we got folks here that, you know, are here [1:59:57] unlawfully come pick them up. And when they don't come pick them up, shouldn't they be liable for that? [2:00:02] Yeah, maybe that's something we could do together. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. [2:00:06] Be glad to work with you. I think those days are probably over with this administration. [2:00:11] But the idea that the federal government had notice and the local community is willing to turn them [2:00:17] over and they turned a blind eye and somebody got hurt, I would be willing definitely to create [2:00:22] liability there. And I'll just conclude, Mr. Chair, and say, you know, the mayor in me, [2:00:27] the governor in me, gets mad when things like this get blamed on mayors and governors, [2:00:34] when often it's complete dysfunction at the federal level under multiple administrations. [2:00:38] That's the real culprit. I yield back. [2:00:40] Right. The lawyer in me wants to hold people accountable who create problems. [2:00:46] Senator Scott. [2:00:48] Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for holding this important hearing. [2:00:51] The United States is a nation of law and order. Those two things go hand in hand, [2:00:56] because when you have laws that are obeyed, you have order in your communities. But for too long, [2:01:01] liberal states and cities have decided to simply ignore the federal laws they don't agree with. [2:01:05] When I was the governor of Florida, I didn't have to worry about our sheriffs [2:01:10] not enforcing the law. Because President Trump and our federal law enforcement have to worry about [2:01:17] that every day. The American people voted very clearly to secure the border. That's what the [2:01:21] election was about. And stop illegal immigration. We're a country of legal immigration, not illegal [2:01:28] immigration. And without a single new law being enacted, President Trump has delivered and secured the [2:01:33] border. When President Biden said he couldn't do it. President Trump and the heroic men and women [2:01:38] of our ICE and Border Patrol are enforcing our laws and they're securing our nation and the crime rate [2:01:43] is down. But some Americans say, no, we won't follow federal law. We want to be a sanctuary for [2:01:50] people who broke the law to enter our country illegally. It is a violation against the law to come into our [2:01:56] country illegally, like most countries. It's dangerous, it's costly to the American taxpayer, and has [2:02:02] horrific consequences. That's why I and my colleague on this committee, Senator Moreno, have introduced two [2:02:08] bills to curb this kind of dangerous disregard for the law. Our Unifying American Security Interest Act [2:02:14] and Sanctuary Jurisdiction Event Security Enhancement Act, which stopped DHS funding grants and financial [2:02:20] assistance from going to cities and jurisdictions that refuse to support our ICE and DHS agents in their [2:02:26] efforts to keep our streets safe. Americans clearly don't want their tax dollars used for handouts to [2:02:31] illegal aliens for health care or food stamps while we have American citizens here at home who are going [2:02:37] without. And that's the exact kind of waste and financial mismanagement that these bills will stop. [2:02:43] That's just the financial costs. Let's talk about the human costs. Laken Riley, a nursing student 22 [2:02:48] years old in Georgia, was beaten with a rock and struggle by a Venezuelan illegal alien who had been [2:02:53] caught at the border and released under Biden's open borders rules. Rachel Morin, 37, from Maryland, [2:03:00] mother 5, who was raped and murdered while hiking by a Salvadorian criminal alien who crossed her border [2:03:05] illegally not once, not twice, but three times under Biden. Kate Seinley, 32, died in her father's arms [2:03:13] on a San Francisco pier after being shot by a five-time Mexican deportee who was allowed to roam freely [2:03:20] because the city's sanctuary policy led local officials to ignore an ICE detainer. These are just [2:03:26] a few of the many lives cut short in the potential unrealized lives because of Biden's open borders that [2:03:33] allowed dangerous people to come into this country and the sanctuary cities that chose to support and [2:03:38] encourage these criminals. I'm from Florida. We are an immigration state, legal immigration. We don't [2:03:44] support illegal immigration. Sheriff Chapman, my question, how can open borders and lax immigration [2:03:51] policies like a sanctuary cities be considered humane by Democrats if they fail to protect the very [2:03:57] citizens Democrats and other elected officials are meant to serve and they're under oath of office to [2:04:03] serve? Well, I agree with that. I mean, the most important thing is for us to keep safety, keep our [2:04:09] people safe, and we've got to do everything in our power, and that that includes working with everybody. [2:04:13] And I make that point all the time to my constituents say, look, we want to work with all of our federal [2:04:19] counterparts. We all have different missions here, different cogs in the wheel, but we all have to [2:04:23] work together to keep everybody safe. Is it better for you if you turn somebody, a criminal over to ICE [2:04:29] rather than let them back into the community? Absolutely. Absolutely. Mr. Wolff, in sanctuary cities, [2:04:35] local authorities can decline ICE detainers, which means that criminals are released back in the [2:04:39] community rather than transferred safely into ICE custody. This creates opportunities for illegal [2:04:44] fugitives to relocate or reoffend, like in the tragic murder of Kate Steinle. It also forces DHS [2:04:51] officers to go into neighborhoods to root out violent criminals. Not only does this cost a taxpayer more, [2:04:56] it also increases the risk for everyone involved, including bystanders, DHS officers, and potential [2:05:01] future victims. How do these policies prioritize offenders over American victims by obstructing [2:05:07] deportations? Well, when ICE is required to go into a community out on the streets, right, [2:05:13] instead of going into that jail setting and picking up that that criminal illegal alien, it'll take one [2:05:18] or two officers to go into a jail setting. If they have to go into their neighborhood, it's going to [2:05:22] take 15 to 20 officers to apprehend that same individual. You're putting not only officers at risk, [2:05:28] you're putting that alien at risk, and you're putting others in that community at risk. So, [2:05:32] the idea here, and it's an ironic kind of play here, is that individuals and politicians that want [2:05:39] less ICE in their, in their jurisdictions, they will give them sanctuary policies to say, [2:05:44] we want ICE out. But in fact, it just requires them to be more in their communities because they [2:05:49] won't go into a jail setting. They have to go into their neighborhoods. They have to continue to enforce [2:05:54] immigration law. So, if your idea is, I want to see less ICE in my community, I don't, I don't like [2:06:00] immigration enforcement, let them into your jail. Let them pick up those criminal illegal aliens. [2:06:05] Otherwise, they're going to be out on your streets because they have to continue to enforce [2:06:08] immigration law. And of course, it's better with local law enforcement support and cooperation. But [2:06:13] again, in many jurisdictions, sanctuary jurisdictions, we don't see that either. [2:06:17] Thank you, Chairman. Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:06:21] A quick question for all of you. We can just do a very simple, if it's okay, yes or no. I'm going [2:06:26] to try to ask it as a simple yes or no question. Are you familiar with USC 1325? Yes. No? Yes. Yes. [2:06:36] You're not? Okay. So, the law passed in 1952, it's the Immigration Actualization Act. It talked about [2:06:42] how the country controls immigration. Mr. Wolf, start with you. Do you think that we made a mistake [2:06:47] passing that law that prohibits people from entering this country illegally? Sheriff, do you believe [2:06:54] we made a mistake passing that law? No, I don't think so. Ms. Vaughn? No. It was a mistake to not [2:07:00] let them come legally. That's what we need. But that's not what the law said. The law said you [2:07:05] can't enter the country illegally. There were definitely mistakes in the I&A. Many mistakes. [2:07:10] Don't be cute. Was that part of the law a mistake? Yes or no? The part of the law that says you can't [2:07:15] come legally? Yes. That was a mistake. That was a mistake that you can't come illegally? No. Legally. [2:07:21] Legally is what I said. Okay. So, you haven't answered my question, but that's okay. You're a smug [2:07:26] guy and that's part of your shtick. How about you? I don't know anything about this law. Do you think [2:07:32] it should be a crime to enter the country illegally? I don't know anything about this. I'm here to talk [2:07:41] about budgets with the budget. You don't have to. Look, I'm not a lawyer. You don't have to be a [2:07:44] lawyer. It's a simple question. Should it be a crime? I'll say it slowly. Should it be a crime to enter the [2:07:50] United States of America illegally? I don't know anything about this. Without permission? [2:07:56] Do you have a home? Right. Do you have a place that you sleep in? Yes, correct. Okay. [2:08:03] Should it be a crime for people to enter your home without permission? Yes. You're pretty certain [2:08:10] on that one? Yes. Okay. But you're not sure if it's okay to enter America without permission, [2:08:17] which is our home, by the way. You don't know about America. Okay. Gotcha. All right. So, this is the best [2:08:23] the Democrats can come up with, Mr. Chairman. I hope the ranking member can listen for just a second, [2:08:29] if you don't mind. This is the best witnesses you've got. A guy who can't distinguish whether [2:08:35] it's okay to have people enter our country illegally. Of all the millions of people that you could have [2:08:41] chosen to testify. To my good colleague. Let me finish. The best you have is a guy who has no idea [2:08:48] what our immigration law is and isn't sure if somebody should enter the country illegally. Another guy is a [2:08:54] smug guy who obviously has an agenda. And in fact, let me just ask you a question because I'll just [2:08:59] ask him flat. Maybe stick to the facts instead of badgering the witnesses. Not badgering the witnesses. [2:09:04] Well, you're attacking them. Yeah, why don't you ask them actual factual questions. But why don't you do [2:09:07] this? Why don't you speak when it's your turn? Oh, because we actually take turns. You're addressing me, [2:09:11] so I'm addressing you back. You're looking right at me. You're addressing me. Here's what I find ironic, [2:09:16] is that you follow rules here about speaking order. People can't speak out of turn, [2:09:22] but it's okay with you that people enter our country and skip the turn. Oh, now you're attributing [2:09:27] views to me I haven't expressed. Isn't that interesting? What I would love to find interesting. [2:09:31] Not only you're attacking witnesses, now you're attacking your colleagues here on the dais. [2:09:35] You make it easy. All right, back to you. Wait a minute. I'm in charge. Yes, sir. [2:09:40] You ask him a question. Yes. He'll get a chance to answer that question. Finish your time. Thank you. [2:09:47] All right. Moving on to the next question. Mr. Sheriff, how important is it for local law [2:09:53] enforcement to cooperate with federal officials? I can say it's worked for us and it's kept our [2:09:58] crime rate down extraordinarily low. So if somebody is in your position in Hamilton County, which is the [2:10:05] county where Cincinnati is, or the Cincinnati Chief of Police, would you advise them that you think it's [2:10:10] helpful to cooperate with law enforcement? Absolutely. Okay. Do you find it interesting [2:10:15] that politicians who have no idea, no background in law enforcement, will pass laws that prohibit [2:10:22] law enforcement to cooperate with federal officials, local law enforcement? Is that a good idea? [2:10:26] No, it's not a good idea. It's a terrible idea. Do you have death threats against your sheriff deputies [2:10:32] on a regular basis? We get threats, not at all. Constant death threats, or do you get constant? Not [2:10:38] constant death threats, but we do get threats, yes. Do you have drug cartels that have bounties out for [2:10:43] your deputies? No. No, we don't. Do you get your agents doxed where they go to your agents, [2:10:50] your deputies' homes and threaten their children and their wives and their kids? No, we have not. [2:10:56] Do you get politicians that call your deputies Gestapo and Nazis? We've had certainly not politicians, [2:11:05] not locally here, but certainly we've had a lot of people in the community that have said that. Do you [2:11:10] find any of that helpful when talking about law enforcement agencies? Because see, here's the [2:11:14] irony. What we're disparaging is the people whose job it is to enforce the laws. And I find it [2:11:23] extraordinarily interesting that the people in charge of making these laws are disparaging the [2:11:29] people who are enforcing those laws. And I wonder, and I'll ask for the record, if the minority witnesses [2:11:36] could just sign an affidavit that they've not received any money, and the organization that they [2:11:41] work for or participate in from any organizations tied to the Mexican drug cartels, which would have [2:11:47] an absolute incentive to have illegal migration at the levels that we saw under Biden. [2:11:52] And if you have any reason, we haven't accepted any drug cartel money. Okay. Again, if they could just [2:12:03] put that an affidavit or an affiliated organization. You okay, Mr. Duke? I'd like to look at the affidavit. [2:12:13] Okay. Fair enough. But do you know if you've accepted any money? [2:12:18] I do not know of anything like that. Right. Yeah, sure. Okay. Thank you. [2:12:24] All right. So good hearing. Senator Merkley, I'll let you go first. I'll have a few words and we'll go vote. [2:12:32] Well, let's start with the gang of eight that my colleague referred to from 2013. Democrats and [2:12:39] Republicans came together four and four. They crafted a bill on immigration. It was all about the rule of law [2:12:45] on the border. Democrats and Republicans together saying the rule of law matters. And it addressed [2:12:51] many of the immigration challenges that we have in different sectors, be it employment, agriculture, [2:12:59] a path to citizenship for people who've been here a long time, path to citizenship for dreamers, [2:13:04] Democrats and Republicans together. So one of the myths we've heard today from some of my colleagues [2:13:10] is that Democrats don't support the rule of law. Absolutely wrong. What happened to that 2013 bill? [2:13:16] It went over to the House of Representatives controlled by Republicans. They would not even [2:13:21] hold a hearing on it. They wanted to keep an open sore of immigration as a political issue. In 2024, [2:13:28] Democrats and Republicans Senate came together again, crafted a deal, and it was President Trump, [2:13:34] as a candidate who said, don't do it. I want to keep immigration as an election issue. So I just think [2:13:41] it would be more productive if we quit casting aspersions across the aisle and go back to the [2:13:47] philosophy of 2013 and work together to actually get a bill done or the philosophy of 2024. And [2:13:55] certainly all of us agree in growing after violent criminals. That's the second myth that was presented [2:14:00] today that people don't support going after violent criminals. Absolutely a myth. And it's just [2:14:07] irritating to continuously hear that. Myth number three from one of my colleagues was that Democrats [2:14:14] won't fund FEMA. In fact, last week in the Senate, we asked unanimous consent to fund FEMA and the Coast Guard [2:14:22] and TSA, and it was the Republicans that objected. So let's clear up that piece. The next myth, that is that [2:14:31] undocumented individuals receive benefits. It is illegal under the law for undocumented individuals to receive [2:14:38] Medicaid or Medicare or CHIP or SNAP or Social Security benefits. Another myth that states that have [2:14:48] decided that local police are more effective being local police somehow attract immigrants because [2:14:56] they're not held accountable to the law. They are held accountable to the law. In fact, you have lower [2:15:02] crime rates in those states. So that's kind of interesting. And in fact, we see that some states, [2:15:11] like Texas, they have 50 percent more undocumented immigrants as a ratio of population than Oregon does. [2:15:18] So clearly, it's not Oregon's policies that say we're more effective and safer and more prosperous [2:15:25] when ICE does ICE and local police do local police work. And yet another myth. One of my colleagues [2:15:32] across the aisle said states do not have powers. He says they do not have rights. But they do have powers. [2:15:39] Tenth Amendment. The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution are reserved to the states [2:15:45] and to the people. And that is why the federal government cannot commande their individuals in [2:15:50] the states to do federal responsibilities. It's called the Constitution of the United States of [2:15:57] America. Another myth was that it's less safe in states where local police do local police work. [2:16:04] There's many statistics that show the opposite of that. But let's just take, for example, where is the [2:16:09] highest murder rate in America? Is it in a state where local police are assigned to local police? [2:16:14] No. It's Mississippi. Who's the second highest murder rate? Louisiana. How's the murder rate in Oregon? [2:16:22] It is one fourth of what is in those states. So let's be clear again, this myth that you have higher crime [2:16:29] rates in places where the local police gain the trust of the people, work carefully between state and local, [2:16:36] and with federal officials, but they don't do the work of ICE. And if ICE knows that someone is in [2:16:44] a jail and they know because it's in the federal database, it's an FBI database, and they want that [2:16:50] person, it only takes a couple days to go get a judicial warrant and pick that person up. Every time [2:16:55] there's a judicial warrant, that person is held. So if it's just being lazy or sloppy or whatever else, [2:17:02] there's a whole lot of misinformation coming forward here that needed to be corrected. [2:17:08] Well, thank you very much. I have a different view of things. I really appreciate the hearing. [2:17:15] Obama deported three million people. I don't think all of them were criminals. [2:17:19] They didn't use judicial warrants. What you're trying to do is make it impossible to deport people. [2:17:26] If you have to go to a judge and get a judicial warrant to deport somebody, you effectively destroy the [2:17:31] ability to deport. You're denying Trump the same system you are giving Obama. [2:17:36] This hearing to me is stunning. I'm so glad we had it. You're all in on sanctuary city policy. [2:17:42] If you're looking to America, if you're looking for anybody to change this system, [2:17:47] our Democratic friends have no interest. They think it's good for America. The more illegal immigrants, [2:17:52] the better. I don't. I'd like to have a rational immigration system. Gang of Eight, [2:17:57] I was involved in it. What we tried to do is stop future flow. And the trade-off was to give people [2:18:04] a pathway to citizenship, knowing you would stop future flow. You're right. The House blocked the bill. [2:18:10] During 2020 to 2024, Joe Biden destroyed every concept of rational immigration. He made it impossible [2:18:21] for a Republican to sit down and talk with a Democrat, because during his four years, [2:18:26] he took every rule and ignored it. There are no taxpayer dollars associated with legal immigrants. [2:18:32] They were flown into the country on airplanes. They were bused in. They were fed. They were giving [2:18:39] housing. 11 million people are not living in the streets. They're in some apartment or a house [2:18:45] somewhere. And if you don't think that affects housing, that's crazy. 11 million people came at least [2:18:51] in a four year period. And to hear you say it, no impact on this country. That's just absurd. [2:18:58] So what are we going to do? We're going to try to start with the magnets. If you don't think sanctuary [2:19:05] city policy is a magnet for future illegal immigration, that's just insane. How can you fix it [2:19:11] if you don't take the magnets off the table? The bottom line is I want a vote on my bill to hold local [2:19:19] and state officials accountable for violating federal law when they should enforce it like they [2:19:25] did during Obama. And you won't let me have a vote. You won't let me have the debate. The reason you [2:19:32] don't want to vote is because 70 to 80 percent of the American public think the policies you're pushing [2:19:37] are harmful. There is a budget impact to being overrun in a country in a four year period. To think this [2:19:46] is not a problem is insulting to the American people. It is a problem. And you try to rationalize [2:19:52] it and make it a good thing. It's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. At the end of the day, [2:19:57] if you can't answer the question, it should be a crime to come into the country legally that says [2:20:02] all you really need to know about the people here. Of course it should be. It should be a crime, [2:20:08] as Senator Moreno said, to go in your house without being about it. We cannot have a sovereign nation [2:20:14] when people just show up and come in and go anywhere they want to go. That's just not rational. [2:20:21] We've got more people on the terrorist watch list than we've ever had. 2,700 percent. The people who [2:20:27] come here are all not well-meaning. I understand immigration pretty well. I understand the need [2:20:34] to fix it. The American people want to be fair, but Senator Merkley, they're not going to buy into [2:20:43] a system that constantly allows people to come in unchecked. Once you can prove to them you've [2:20:51] stopped illegal immigration, then we can have a rational discussion about what to do with people [2:20:56] in here a long time. But you've doubled or tripled the number of people. So all I will say, this is a [2:21:02] debate worthy of a great nation. Our Democratic friends are accepting of a sanctuary policy. [2:21:08] They don't think it's a problem. I do. Let's have a debate. Let's have a vote. [2:21:13] This will be good for the country going into 2026 as to who should be in charge of controlling our [2:21:20] borders and enforcing law. This administration is enforcing the law. The prior administration [2:21:28] obliterated the law. Thank you very much to all of you for coming. I appreciate your time and attention. [2:21:34] Senator Merkley, thank you. The hearing is adjourned. Oh, one second. I want to introduce a statement. [2:21:40] Yeah, you can finish up. Donald Rosenberg was unable to be here. I'd like to put his statement [2:21:45] into the record. He represents victims of illegal alien crime. Without objection, [2:21:50] I'd like to introduce this statement if that's okay. Is that okay? Yes. Thank you. I want to thank [2:21:58] our witnesses preparing for the committee. You want to finish your thought. Go ahead. [2:22:03] Mr. Behrer, you have a pile of documents. Did you want to enter those into the record? [2:22:07] What are those documents? Without objection. Okay. [2:22:09] Okay. These are all the studies that show that immigrants do not increase crime [2:22:15] and places that place restrictions on ICE cooperation are not resulting in an increase in [2:22:21] crime. Without objection. Thank you. Okay. The hearing record will remain open until noon [2:22:25] tomorrow for the submission of questions for the record to the committee clerk. The hearing is adjourned. [2:22:30] Thank you all very, very much.