Sanctuary Policies: Victims’ Perspectives

uh to watch these proceedings. Uh without objection, Miss Miller and Mister Lawler will be permitted to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of introducing witnesses. Hearing none, uh so ordered, and without objection, Mister Baumgartner will be permitted to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of questioning the witnesses if a member yields uh him time for that purpose without objection so ordered. Uh I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. During this session, this subcommittee is uh focused on so-called sanctuary laws that put criminal illegal aliens back on the streets rather than turning them over to federal authorities, for deportation, as the law requires. The sole effect of these laws is not to impede general immigration enforcement, it is specifically to prevent deporting criminals. The toll of death and destruction caused by these policies is heartbreaking. As the death toll of innocent Americans continues to mount, Republicans will continue to avail victims' families the opportunity to describe the catastrophic impact that these policies have caused them. Two of those families we'll address us shortly. Uh, one is the mother of Sheridan Gorman. On March nineteenth of this year, Sheridan Gorman, a p- eighteen year old freshman at uh Loyola University, went to a Chicago park with friends to watch the northern lights. Instead, she was shot by an illegal alien from Venezuela, allowed into this country by the Biden administration. Within months of the illegal alien's release at the border, he was arrested for shoplifting. Now, he should have been turned over to authorities for deportation then. Instead, Chicago's sanctuary law released him back into the community, where he had no legal right to be, and Sheridan Gorman is dead as a result. A few weeks ago we heard from the mother of Stephanie Minter, murdered by an illegal alien with dozens of prior arrests, each time returned into the community by Fairfax County officials. Their excuse was that despite an eighty-three million dollar annual budget for the County Sheriff, they just didn't have the resources to pick up the phone and inform ICE that they had custody of an illegal alien so that alien could be deported. When I asked them how much it would cost to make a simple phone call to ICE, And whether Stephanie Mender's life was worth the cost of that phone call, I got no response. The murderer's multiple releases were also enabled by a far-left prosecutor who crafts sweetheart deals for illegal aliens so that they can avoid immigration consequences for their criminality. None of this makes any sense. Last year, these sanctuary jurisdictions refused to honor at least seventeen thousand, eight hundred and sixty-five four ICE detainer requests of illegal aliens accused of committing other crimes. Instead, these aliens, who had no right to be in this country, were released onto our streets to re-offend at will. Illinois and California are just two examples of these renegade jurisdictions. Their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials terrorizes communities incentivizes crime and undermines the rule of law. In Illinois alone, one state in just eleven months, authorities blew off one thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight ice detainers, and instead released these criminals back onto the streets, despite crimes ranging from weapons offenses to burglaries to homicides. According to documents obtained by this committee, the Cook County Sheriff's Office alone released four hundred and eight criminal aliens from its custody in twenty twenty-five, instead of honoring uh active ICE detainers. Now the Democrats complain bitterly that we're focused on this tragedy. Well, I can assure them that the Republican majority will continue to expose the human toll of their policies until they are rectified. I'm sure we'll rehear their complaints that ICE arrests in communities have led to confrontations with violent demonstrators. But those arrests that require squads of officers and that put both officers and would not be necessary if those aliens were turned over to ICE while in the custody of local law enforcement. They also tell us that refusing to cooperate with ICE fosters trust with the illegal alien population. Well, this begs the obvious question. Can legal residents trust sanctuary jurisdictions to protect them and their families? And by the way, a U visa is already available to illegal aliens who are witnesses or victims to crime. Early this year, the Judiciary Committee passed the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act. It prohibits sanctuary jurisdictions from restricting communications with ICE about criminal aliens. It empowers local authorities and sanctuary jurisdictions to work with federal immigration officials. It forbids local jurisdictions from shielding criminals from ICE. It restricts certain federal grant funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that thwart federal law. And it provides a private right of action for the victims of these sanctuary policies. All of that is simple common sense. We shouldn't need to build a forced state and local officials to protect American citizens over dangerous foreign nationals, yet not a single Democrat on this committee voted for that legislation. In addition to the grieving families of Sheridan Gorman and Katie Abraham, who are here today, we're also joined by Sheriff Gary Redman of Amador County, California, from my district. He's dealing with an epidemic of illegal alien crimes centered on illegal marijuana grows, and yet it's forbidden by state law from cooperating or even communicating with ICE to protect his citizens from this scourge. The shutdown Sanctuary Policies Act would free him from these constraints. It's inconceivable that such a reckless and dangerous policy as these so-called sanctuary laws could be supported by a major political party. But as we will see again today, That's the current position of the Democratic Socialist Party, not a fringe element, but the actual elected representatives of that party. I look uh forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by offering my deepest condolences to you, Mrs. Gorman, and to you, Mr. Abraham, for the loss of your children. As a parent myself, I can think of no greater loss, and I appreciate you being here. to share their stories and their lives with us. Unfortunately, this hearing is uh it's the fourth time in this committee that we've had a hearing on sanctuary cities, the fourth time. And uh there's many other things that we could be doing other than this. Um I would have loved to have had some hearings on the unconstitutionality of the President's executive order on eliminating birthright citizenship. This is something that the Supreme Court just ruled today in a six three majority, was unconstitutional, and yet this was an executive order that caused so much fear and trauma across the country. We could have been discussing that, but we haven't. Um, instead, we have had this series of hearings that are designed to attack the very trust policies that research has shown over and over again, have actually saved lives, and kept communities safer by maintaining the necessary and important division between the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws and the enforcement of local criminal laws. This division ensures that people don't fear law enforcement, who try to enforce immigration law, and that community members will actually come forward and be witnesses in these prosecutions to report crimes when they happen. The Trump administration, however, has ignored decades of research and has done the exact opposite. They've blurred the lines between immigration enforcement and law enforcement so much that they essentially no longer exist they've destroyed trust in communities and created fear and even deported witnesses to important crimes, so that then those crimes cannot be effectively prosecuted. On top of that, the Trump administration has diverted over twenty-eight thousand officers from their critical law enforcement activities to work on immigration enforcement instead. This has led to non-immigration criminal prosecutions falling to their lowest point in decades. Gun prosecutions have fallen more than ten percent. Investigators worked thirty-three fewer p- thirty-three percent fewer hours on child exploitation cases. Nearly one in every five FBI agents has been reassigned to arrest immigrants instead of conducting complex criminal investigations of corruption, espionage, terrorism, cyber attacks, and transnational gangs, all things that are necessary to keep Americans safe. Similarly, around one in every two Drug Enforcement Agency agents, two in three Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents, and one in five U. S. Marshals have all been reassigned to immigration enforcement. From within ICE, thousands of homeland security investigations, HSI agents, are focused on immigration enforcement instead of their stated mission of combating transnational crimes, such as drug and weapon smuggling, child exploitation, and human trafficking. During the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, federal prosecutions of gun and drug offenses dropped by nearly ninety percent. Ninety percent. DHS's former chief of staff says that as a result of all of this, our government is quote " asleep at the wheel" and less prepared to stop terrorist attacks than at any point since nine eleven. For what? For what? What are the results of that? Arrests of immigrants without a single criminal conviction. surged by seven hundred and seventy percent. And these immigrants of all immigration statuses get locked up or deported or disappeared at tremendous cost to you the taxpayers and to the traumatized communities that are left behind. That's not a public safety agenda. That's a public safety disaster. So let's just remind people about what this immigration enforcement strategy of this administration has led to. Under Donald Trump, ICE doubled in size. Instead of funding Americans' health care or housing or child care, Republicans poured over two hundred and ten billion dollars, two hundred and ten billion dollars into ICE and CBP. DHS officers killed two U. S. citizens in cold blood in Minnesota. Have we had a hearing on that? No, we haven't. They beat and detained countless U. S. citizens for exercising First Amendment rights, and broke down doors without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ICE has imprisoned four hundred thousand people just in the interior of this country since Trump came in. Parents, children, military veterans, US citizens, people on valid visas, and people who have never committed a single crime. The private prison companies who incarcerate these people get massive profits. They turn around and then contribute to Republicans in Trump's campaigns while maintaining the most horrific conditions inside the prisons that have led to a record fifty-one deaths in ICE detention, just since President Trump took office. So what does all this do for Americans? It hurts them. Their communities get torn apart, their kids lose friends, their businesses suffer from lack of workers, and guess what? Americans actually lose jobs due to harsh immigration enforcement. The Brookings Institution looked at increased ICE enforcement in eighty-six metro areas in red and blue states and found that up to two hundred and ninety-seven thousand American-born workers have lost their jobs as a result of ICE's increased enforcement. That all needs to stop. Our hearings should be on how public safety has been hurt thanks to this administration's policies, or on holding people who killed and detained American citizens accountable, or on the numerous times that this administration denies due process in violation of our constitution. That is what the American people want, not more of what we're doing today. More than sixty percent of Americans now disapprove of Donald Trump's immigration policies. Americans want Trump and Republicans to f- focus on lowering grocery prices, stop giving tax breaks to billionaires, while stripping health care from tens of millions of Americans. But just like Trump has insulted Americans by refusing to sign the most consequential bipartisan housing bill in a generation, calling it " unimportant" and a, quote, " yawn", he's insulting Americans by continuing these harsh immigration policies that hurt safety and hurt opportunity for all Americans. Republicans instead want to coerce states and localities into doing the federal government's job despite numerous court orders that have declared immigration detainers unlawful violations of the Fourth Amendment. They wanna force local police departments to prioritize their limited resources on immigration enforcement, instead of encouraging all community members to come forward and report crimes without worrying about theirs or a w- loved one's immigration status. I hope that this committee does hold hearings on the unconstitutionality of this administration's policies. But certainly, when Republicans are no longer in office after November, We will do just that in the majority. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today, and I yield back.

Appreciate the warning. The gentlelady yields back. The chair is uh now pleased to recognize the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, uh, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, we don't wanna coerce uh coerce anyone, we just wanna stop the stupid policy of sanctuary jurisdiction that led to the tragedies that these families are gonna testify, and talk about today. Gentlelady from Washington, the ranking member, said, fourth hearing on sanctuary jurisdiction, I'll have five, six, seven, eight, I'll have whatever amount of hearings it takes to stop a policy that is so ridiculous. Cuz understand, never forget what sanctuary jurisdiction is in the simplest of terms. Politicians tell local law enforcement, like Sheriff Redman, don't work with federal law enforcement in enforcing federal law. That is dumb. And it's not only dumb, it it results in bad things happening to families. That's why we're having the fourth hearing. And like I said, we'll do whatever, and my guess is the chairman is willing to do whatever amount of hearings it takes, to get our legislation across the finish line. Our sanctuary jurisdiction shutdown act of twenty twenty six. And understand this as well. It is a systematic, I've said this every single hearing we've all four times. It is a systematic plan of the left's. Step one, they let in ten million illegal migrants during the Biden administration. No border, just let in ten million people. Step two, create sanctuary jurisdictions all over this country. Eighteen cities, eleven states, three large counties, like Fairfax County, where the prosecutor there gives special deals to migrants who commit crimes, disadvantage- unequal treatment to Americans, frankly. Let in ten million, create sanctuary jurisdictions, eighteen cities, eleven states, three counties, and the District of Columbia. And then step three, Don't pay the guys who do the enforcement. Don't pay ICE. They did that for a hundred and ten days. They wouldn't fund the guys who do the enforcement. That is their systematic plan. And that you add the four step in, these crazy prosecutors, soft on crime prosecutors. Who when an illegal migrant commits a crime, they won't work with federal law enforcement, let the guy back out, and he does bad things. Just ask Mrs. Gorman. She's gonna talk about that. That is what. Again, I I I just cannot fathom why a party would embrace that mindset, that approach. So God bless Chairman McClintock. He's the sponsor of that bill. It's a good piece of legislation. We need it to pass the House, get to the Senate, get to the President, and sign it, so we can stop this nonsense that has led to such tragic tragic things. With that, I will yield back. And again, I want to thank our witnesses. For the work, share of the work you do, the families who've lost, God bless you, thank you for being here, it's not easy I know, but thank you for coming. And I know your member appreciates it, particularly Miss Gorman for you being here as well. And with that I yield back to the Chairman of the Committee.

The gentleman yields back, I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Raskin, for his opening statement.

Well thank you Mister Chairman and thanks to all of our witnesses for being with us today. I especially want to thank Mister Abraham and Misses Gorman. for coming to speak about their beloved daughters who were criminally and savagely stolen away from their families as a father I too know the pain and devastation of losing a child and my heart goes out to you and to your families um anyone who commits a crime must be held accountable swiftly and completely and immigrants whether lawful or undocumented who commit violent crimes must be deported at the end of their criminal sentences Furthermore, we must end the polarization and dysfunction in Congress, so we can pass comprehensive common sense immigration reform. We need to make it a whole lot harder for people to enter the United States unlawfully and a whole lot e- e- easier to enter the United States legally. Can we agree to an agenda around that? And yet, instead of working with us on basic common sense reforms to make dreamers, lawful residents, to fortify the border, to expand the categories for admission of lawful immigrants, and to make sure DHS and ICE are properly focused on following the law and pursuing their basic self-proclaimed mission of keeping us safe from the worst of the worst our colleagues are conducting an endless series of hearings on sanctuary cities. This is our fourth such hearing. And I'm not sure Republicans have even come to any agreement on what they mean when they use that spooky term. Last year, Trump's Department of Homeland Security published a list of nearly four hundred counties that it classified as sanctuary jurisdictions. This caused an uproar with dozens of conservative sheriffs across the country. Their counties were named sanctuary jurisdictions simply because they had strong policies on upholding states' rights and rejecting unfunded federal mandates and strong policies against conscripting state and local officers to execute federal duties. Stunned by this response, DHS removed the list days after it was published because a list of sanctuary jurisdictions defying the feds could not possibly include so many conservative sheriffs from red counties who drew a strict line around on how much of their locally raised tax revenues and resources they should have to spend carrying out the federal government's immigration enforcement agenda and other constitutional responsibilities when the federal government has a budget far larger than they do. Well, this was a telling collision between Republicans and Republicans. For decades, conservatives argued that the federal government could not impose unfunded federal mandates on localities, or boss around state and local officials to force them to do the work a federal officer is charged with enforcing federal laws. They even succeeded in the Prince case in nineteen seventy seven to convince a conservative Supreme Court majority to hold that the tenth amendment invalidated a provision in the Brady hand-gun control act which purported to compel sheriffs and police chiefs to conduct background searches on prospective gun buyers. Just as Antolin Scalia found for the majority, a five four majority, that this pr- provision violated the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government, he said, from commandeering state and local officers to use their official time and their local resources to implement unfunded federal mandates under the direction of federal officers. Justice Scalia asserted that this constitutional prohibition in the Tenth Amendment was categorical. He was unmoved by the heartfelt claims that the failure to integrate local sheriffs and local police into the federal machinery of drug policy, of gun policy enforcement would result in more gun violence, more death, and more injury. The feds must enforce their own laws, just as Scalia said. So this is precisely the same mistake which I think our friends across the aisle are making here. We've heard from some of the jurisdictions, dragooned into Congress on their official time and their official salaries to participate in this endless sequence of repetitive hearings that they would notify, and they do notify federal authorities, of when any immigrant prisoner is set to be released from local jail. Um, and if asked, they arrange for them to be picked up and handed over right away to immigration authorities. No jurisdiction has given them a problem about that. But what the ones who've appeared before say they cannot do is hold such prisoners beyond the length of their judicial sentences. for the conf- for the convenience of federal officials, both because this practice turns state and local officials into de facto federal workers, as Justice Scalia said you can't do, reporting to ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, instead of reporting to their own courts, and also because they say, and certainly the people from Virginia who showed up at the last such hearing said, they have no constitutional authority under due process or habeas corpus law, to hold prisoners without arrest, prosecution, and conviction. So the position they've taken, which doesn't seem at least to be unreasonable or deranged, is simply they're very happy to work with the feds to turn people over before their sentences are completed, but after their sentences are completed, they can't hold them. So why are our colleagues so desperate to keep pulling this boogeyman of the sanctuary jurisdictions out of the closet? Well, perhaps it has to do with the fact that they voted to give DHS more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to improve immigration enforcement. And America has watched as the Department of Homeland Security has used this staggering pile of money to waste on luxurious private jets for the secretary complete with bedrooms and bars, on overpriced and ultimately useless industrial warehouses, to detain human beings that are now being sold off at a massive loss to the taxpayers, on a glitzy two hundred and twenty million dollar public relations horseback photo shoot and ad campaign for a glamorous Department of Homeland Security secretary who called the slain citizens Alex Preddy and Rene Good terrorists. Magna Rubbins have done nothing as ICE has abused hundreds of billions of dollars. to arrest, beat up, shoot, and even kill American citizens for exercising their First and Second Amendment rights. They've allowed ICE to ignore its duty to keep us safe from the worst of the worst, and instead gone after kids and parents coming home from kindergarten, rape survivors who just finished testifying in court and volunteers at Catholic church soup kitchens. ICE's indiscriminate and chaotic immigration enforcement has also undermined the ability of state and local prosecutors and law enforcement to keep their own communities safe, and to l- to deliver justice to victims of crime. They are deporting crime victims, as well as key witnesses in informants without any notice to state or local police and prosecutors. As a result, investigations are being thwarted, criminal trials are being thrown into disarray, and American communities are less safe. House Judiciary Democrats put out a report called " Acquitted by Removal", how Trump's mass deportation agenda abandons crime victims and allows the perpetrators to avoid justice, which I re- recommend that all of you check out. Not only is DHS not making our community safer, it's making us worse off. A recent study found that the metro areas most targeted by ICE, in both red and blue states, had suffered losses of nearly six hundred and seventy thousand jobs, up to forty-four percent of which were held by American citizens. The uh, r- immigration roundup is profoundly costly to our communities. The administration's attacks on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions are hurting Americans from all walks of life. One can only regard with amazement the fact that rather than own up to this disastrous record my colleagues are trying to change the subject and blame the failures of the Department of Homeland Security not on Kristi Noem and her dysfunctional accomplices and successors but on the state and local jurisdictions which did not create the problem, have no real power to address it, and are constitutionally protected from being impressed into service, as Justice Scalia said, by an illegal commandeering policy passed by Congress. DHS has a quarter of a million employees in a budget larger than that of a hundred and fifty countries on earth. It has over eighty thousand sworn law enforcement officers, more than the number of officers in New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, DC, Las Vegas, and Dallas combined. But despite all of that, our colleagues think that state and local jurisdictions should be using their money and their funds to do the Department of Homeland Security job for them. If our colleagues are serious about public safety, they should join us in imposing guardrails on ice to refocus their energy, on going after the worst of the worst, and to ensure that they respect the fundamental rights of every U. S. citizen. They should reinvest in public safety programs that the administration has cut, that supported local law enforcement, assisted victims of crime, and gone after organized crime drug traffickers. And they should put push back on the President's shocking abuse of the pardon power, which has allowed drug traffickers and international narco-dealers and criminal fraudsters to walk free, depriving victims and taxpayers of nearly two billion dollars in unmet restitution. Last Congress we came together to craft a bipartisan border security bill, President Biden agreed to sign it, but then candidate Trump blew up the deal because he wanted a crisis to run on, more than he wanted an actual solution. Sadly, since then, our colleagues have been doing more of the same, holding hearing after hearing on the same topic, failing to pass their signature border bill or even their bill to coerce and commandeer sanctuary cities to do their bidding. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hope that we can rejoin together in doing the work of the American people. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record, and we'll now introduce today's witnesses. Uh, by the way, I'll n- I'll note that permitting off-committee members, uh, to introduce witnesses is not something our committee normally allows. Uh, I'd ask the members please focus their remarks on introducing a witness, and refrain from making a broader speech on the topic of today's hearing. Uh, so I'll begin by recognizing uh Miss Miller to introduce Mister Abraham.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'm honored to introduce my friend and fellow Illinois resident, Joe Abraham. One year ago, Mister Abraham sat in the House oversight committee hearing as Illinois Governor J B Pritzker defended his administration's sanctuary policies. I had the opportunity to address that committee and question the governor. I will never forget seeing Mister Abraham in the room, a grieving father seeking answers after losing his daughter to a tragedy that was entirely preventable. As he will share with this committee, the Illinois governor's refusal to enforce our nation's immigration laws, contributed to the death of his youngest child. Katie Abraham, who has been described by her father as having a beautiful soul and a large personality, was killed in the early hours of January nineteenth, twenty twenty five, by an intoxicated illegal alien who crashed into the car carrying Katie and her friends. Despite unimaginable grief, Joe Abraham chose courage over silence. He has become a powerful advocate not just for Katie, but for families across America who believe their voices are being ignored, and for the victims whose stories deserve to be heard, and for Americans who expect their government to fulfill the most fundamental responsibility to protect its own citizens. You could not have picked a better witness, Mister Chairman. Joe will provide this committee with a first-hand account of the consequences of the left's sanctuary policies and why we must never forget its victims. Mister Chairman, thank you.

General Lady Yield's back. Uh, now I recognize uh, Mister Lawler to introduce Miss uh, Mrs. Gorman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for having me at this important hearing. I'm here today to introduce Jessica Gorman. Jessica should not be here today. She should not be testifying before Congress. She should be back in New York with her daughters, Madeline and Sheridan, enjoying a quiet Tuesday afternoon in the summer. But unfortunately, Jessica is here with us today. And she's here because just a few short months ago, her beautiful daughter, Sheridan was shot and killed in Chicago by an illegal immigrant. I cannot say it loud enough or clear enough, but this nation and this Congress owes you an apology. We are sorry to you, to Tom, and to Madeline. I didn't know Sheridan personally, and that's a tragedy. But I know her family. And I know the Yorktown community. I know that she was a kind and compassionate young woman who cared about her community and had a bright future ahead of us. And I know without a doubt in my mind the incredible things she would have done with her life should she had been given the chance. Her murder was senseless. It should not have happened. Our immigration policies exist for a reason. And they should have been enforced. Sheridan would still be with us today, and Jessica would not have to testify before this panel. Our immigration laws facilitate legal immigration processes to ensure that good, smart people can come into this country, assimilate and contribute to our communities, while also ensuring that criminals who break the law do not get to stay.

This is a statement of the law.

Their jobs are made infinitely harder when places like New York and Chicago blatantly disregard existing law and provide safe harbor to criminals.

We're not the State of the Union.

Sanctuary policies are the reason, right?

Mister Chairman, point of order, this is this is a statement,

Gentleman, gentleman, let me suspend.

not an introduction.

Uh, general, lady's point is well taken, uh, gentleman, please confine his remarks to the introduction.

Thank you.

Back in May of two thousand and twenty-three, over three years ago, Sheridan's murderer illegally entered the United States. Border patrol caught him. They apprehended him. But then, because of the Biden administration's ludicrous open border policies he was released into our country. A month later, he was arrested for shoplifting in Chicago, under existing law, and the law at the time he should have been deported right then and there and in Chicago for abiding by our federal laws

point of order this is not an introduction point of order this is not an introduction it's a speech

well

should be ashamed of yourselves you should be ashamed of yourselves

Mister Chairman Mister Chairman we had

point of order

it is disgraceful

I ask for a ruling on the point of order

mother,

we did

you hear uh precisely because you have failed to do your job

I ask for a ruling on the point of order

Mister Chairman

you wonder why we had four year four hearings it's because you don't understand the consequence of sanctuary policies

but gentlemen gentlemen will suspend

Mister Chairman unfortunately we won't give our

gentlemen will suspend

approval for people to introduce their constituents if people don't stick to the rules. So I appreciate the chairman's insistence that we stick to the rules

Yep.

and that you have the opportunity to introduce your constituent, which I think you have done.

Right, an introducing my constituent is

So thank you very much, Mister Lawler and Mister Chairman,

is sharing the details of her death.

please have the committee be in order.

You may not wanna hear the details, it may be an inconvenience to you,

Mister Chairman.

but these details matter.

The gentleman will suspend we have an agreement with the minority that the introductions will be introductory only. So if I could just ask for the gentleman to make that introduction and conclude.

Please make it short, yeah.

Sure. When you send your kid to college, you should be worried about making sure they go to class, or hopefully that they have a nice roommate, or how to help them get a summer internship. not worried that illegal immigrants are shooting them while they're out with their friends looking at the northern lights. It is shameful that we are here. Not because this is the fourth hearing, but because we've need to have four hearings to make people understand the real-life consequences of the disastrous sanctuary city policies. So while some of my colleagues may not want to hear the truth, the same outrage you feel about Rene Good and Alex Pretty you should feel about Sheridan Gorman and Lakin Riley, Mister Chairman, would you please end this, and every angel family in this country. end this statement?

I I do feel that outrage.

You do not.

Do you do you

Because if you did,

Do you feel

you would not support sanctuary jurisdiction.

Do you feel the outrage about Alex Pretty and Rene Good?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Jamie.

You don't belong on this committee. You should get the hell out of here.

You're a disgrace.

You don't understand the rules of the committee.

You're a disgrace.

You don't understand the constitution.

Mr. Raskin, Mr. Raskin.

They're full of it. They're absolutely full of it.

They're an absolute disgrace supporting sanctuary policies.

Mr. Raskin, get a hold of yourself.

Say one word about it.

Get rid of sanctuary policies.

Say one word about it, Alex, ready to make good.

I did. I wrote a whole New York Times op-ed about it.

Don't believe.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for not opposing

Okay, then follow the rules of the committee. The committee, the committee will be

sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter's death.

The committee will, the committee will be in order.

Mr. Chairman, I I just want to say we we will not allow for thanks to Mr. Lawler's,

I'm going to

uh, outrageous outbursts, we will not allow this to happen again. This was an agreement between

We will we will pursue

chair and the ranking member and unfortunately you're not able to control your members,

We will proceed.

so it is time for us to proceed.

Your opening statement was outrageous.

We will proceed. We will proceed in order

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Not on the committee agenda, get off of it.

I yield back.

Speak that speak that to your member, Mr. Chairman.

We have two other introductions to make, which I think will go a little uh more smoothly. Uh uh one is uh Miss Sarah Pierce. who's the Director of Social Policy at Third Way. She previously worked at US Citizenship and Immigration Services and has served as Senior Counsel for the Senate uh Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Miss Pierce has a Bachelor's degree from Grinnell College, a Master's degree from the Elliott School of International Affairs, and a Law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law. And finally we have Sheriff Gary Redmond, who's been the Sheriff of Amador County, California since ni- uh twenty twenty one. He's a veteran of the US Air Force. Uh Sheriff Redman's career includes service with the Los Angeles Police Department, and nearly three decades with the Amador County Sheriff's Office. He's a graduate of the Sherman Block uh Supervisory Leadership Institute, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy held in Quantigo, Virginia. On a personal note, I'll add that uh Sheriff uh Redman has been a leading advocate in California to sound the alarm sanctuary laws as we'll hear, uh Sheriff Redman and many of his fellow sheriffs want desperately to cooperate and coordinate with ICE, but are forbidden from doing so by state law. Uh with those introductions, uh we'll now welcome our witnesses, thank them for appearing today, and we'll begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand. You swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give

Chairman, Chairman, ranking members, ranking members, and members of the committee, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. thank you for the opportunity to testify. Uh, for most Americans, January nineteenth, twenty twenty five was just an ordinary day. For my family, it was the days, it was the day that our lives were permanently altered. That night, my twenty year old daughter, Katie, was riding with friends in Urbana, Illinois, visiting University of Illinois s- uh friends, going to that college. The vehicle was stopped at a red light. They were exactly where they were supposed to be. They were obeying laws and posed a danger to no one. In a matter of seconds, an intoxicated illegal immigrant driving nearly eighty miles an hour crashed into the back of their idle vehicle. Katie was killed. Another young woman was killed. Three other young people suffered serious injuries. My daughter's future ended in that intersection. Katie was bright, compassionate, athletic, and deeply loved. Today, instead of watching her graduate from college this year, begin a career, build a family of her own, we visit and tend to her grave. The individual responsible, Julio Cucaboll, a Guatemalan national who was previously deported and re-entered illegally in the United States in twenty twenty two. After the crash, he fled, leaving the death and destruction behind him, but was later apprehended in Texas. As devastating as Katie's death is, what brings me here before Congress is not what happened that night. It's everything that happened before it. A previously deported individual illegally returned to the United States, remained here, obtained a Illinois driver's license, and ultimately killed two women. Those are not my opinions, those are facts. During court proceedings, Boll testified through an interpreter that he could not read, write, or speak English or Spanish. He communicated primarily with Kai-Chi. an indigenous Mayan Guatemalan language. Imagine the struggles of translators there. Yet he was issued a Fala- Illinois driver's license. Which raises serious questions. How was competency evaluated? Whether public safety was even a concern. Any protocols followed. Accountability cannot change what happened to Katie. But it can help prevent similar tragedies. My parents came to America legally more than six years ago from a developing country. Like millions of lawful immigrants, they believed America was a nation governed by laws rather than political convenience. They respected the process because they respected the country. They taught me citizenship carries obligations, that laws exist for a reason, and that government has fundamental responsibilities to the people it serves. When government fails in that responsibilities, real people bear the consk- consequences. My daughter was one of them. The central question before this committee to me is straightforward. Did failures in immigration enforcement, government coordination, public policy increase preventable risks to uh American citizens? These are not partisan questions. They are oversight questions. They are public safety questions. Too often, immigration debates become about systems and policies while victims fade into the background. Katie was not a statistic. She was my daughter. She should still be alive today. Congress can't undo what happened to Katie, but it can demand examine what failed. Demand transparency from government agencies and public officials, insist that policies be judged not by their intentions, by their outcomes. Katie lost her future January nineteenth, twenty twenty five. My family lost ours with her. I ask this committee to demand full transparency, identify the failures that allowed a previously deported individual to illegally return, remain in this country, obtain a driver's license, and ultimately kill two young women. Hold government accountable, strengthen coordination between federal, state, and local authorities, and judge every policy but one simple question. Would this be with this better protected next American stopped at a red light. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh, we'll next hear from Ms. Pierce.

Chairman McClintock, Making the member Jaya Paul, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to start by saying, Mr. Abraham and Mrs. Gorman, I'm incredibly sorry for your losses. No one should suffer like your families have suffered. And I honor and admire your bravery in being here today. My name is Sarah Pierce. I'm Director of Social Policy at Third Way. Third Way has a long history of saying things that both Democrats and Republicans dislike, so let me start there. The Biden administration's border policies were inexcusable. The Trump administration's interior enforcement policies are also inexcusable. My testimony today focuses on why. I have three main points. First, Sanctuary policies do not prevent ICE from enforcing federal law. Every jurisdiction, including self-proclaimed sanctuaries, participates in immigration enforcement. When someone is booked, fingerprints are checked against federal databases, and ICE has access to that. ICE has federal authority, agents, databases, and now extraordinary funding. Thir- a hundred and thirteen point five billion in supplemental funding through twenty twenty nine. This is more than the combined operating budgets of every local law enforcement jurisdiction in America. Meanwhile, state and local law enforcement are starved for resources. Three quarters of local police departments have fewer than twenty-five officers. They handle crime, overdoses, sensitive community calls, asking them to absorb federal duties pulls them away from their local obligations. The focus should be on how cooperation can advance public safety and support local policing. Second, this administration is making cooperation harder, not easier. Local jurisdictions need to trust federal partners before they lend them local resources. Yet this administration has treated skeptical jurisdictions as adversaries to be punished, not partners to be persuaded. This jur- this administration has threatened funding, filed lawsuits, and accused entire jurisdictions of protecting criminals. ICE's tactics have deepened this trust deficit. The public cannot distinguish between police and ICE, especially when ICE is wearing police markings. When federal operations are chaotic, abusive, or deadly, local police are left to repair the damage. Third, this administration's own decisions are making Americans more vulnerable to crime. Federal law enforcement are abandoning serious work in favor of immigration enforcement. In San Francisco, federal drug dealing prosecutions fell by more than half after federal agents were redirected to immigration enforcement. In Minnesota, Hennepin County's top prosecutor said federal agents were bringing criminal cases to her because they were too busy with immigration work. In addition, tens of thousands of federal agents with specialized experience in child exploitation, human trafficking, arms trafficking, and violent crime have been diverted from their primary public safety missions to instead focus on immigration enforcement. That's especially dangerous for child exploitation cases which require specialized resources and personnel. When those agents get reassigned, children wait longer to be found and predators get more time to harm them. The Department of Justice is also weakening public safety infrastructure by delaying and cancelling grants. Each year, the Department of Justice grants billions for police hiring, prosecutors, and victim services across the United States. Congress provided more than four point five billion for fiscal year twenty twenty five grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Justice programs but now nine months later less than half of that has gone out the door notably for the majority on this committee the states you represent are missing a hundred and sixty three million in congressionally authorized public safety funding from last year. That money still has not gone out to Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. The administration has also terminated more than eight hundred and twenty million in public safety grants, cutting initiatives on rural crime, officer safety and wellness, anti-terrorism training, and more than half of federal gun violence prevention funding. For grants that are going out, new ideological conditions related to political priorities like vaccines, gender ideology, and protection of public monuments are discouraging applicants from even applying. I urge this subcommittee to broaden its oversight and stop treating sanctuary fights as a substitute for all public safety oversight. Demand a course correction, restore the grants to your own states, stop diverting specialized agents from serious crime, and rebuild trust that local law enforcement need. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll next hear from Sheriff Redman.

distinguished members of the committee, today I would like to share my perspective on the impacts illegal immigration has had on a small rural county such as Amador. Located in California's gold country east of Sacramento, Amador covers five hundred and ninety-four square miles and has served by just fifty-four sworn deputies and approximately forty correctional deputies. Providing public safety services across such a large geographic area presents unique challenges. From nineteen ninety nine through twenty fifteen, I served eight years as a SWAT operator and another eight years as the SWAT team leader responsible for high-risk search warrants and tactical operations. During that time, many large-scale illegal marijuana cultivation operations in Amador and neighboring counties were controlled by the Mexican drug cartels. These organizations frequently u- utilized individuals who had been smuggled into the United States to work at cultivation sites. Many of these individuals were armed and on occasion have engaged law enforcement officers. These operations pose significant risks not only to law enforcement personnel, but also to the public. Amateur attracts more than twenty thousand visi- visitors annually to its streams, rivers, lakes, hiking trails, and campgrounds. Hikers and outdoor enthusiasts have encountered illegal cultivation sites and armed individuals. Cartels also smuggled banned pesticides into the region, causing substantial environmental damage and harming local wildlife. Between twenty fifteen and twenty twenty five, Amateur County investigated seventy-three illegal marijuana cultivation operations involving ind- individuals to be believed unlawfully present in the United States. Arrestor charges resulting from those investigations include a hundred and seventy-three individuals, Asian origin, persons from China, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, fifty-three Mexican nationals, one Venezuelan national, two Ukrainian nationals, two South African nationals and one Gu- Guatemala national. Since President Trump returned to office and federal immigration enforcement priorities have changed, we have cooperated with ICE to the fullest extent permitted under California's SB fifty-four sanctuary law. As sheriff, my highest priority is protecting public safety. In early twenty twenty five, I made the decision that I would not knowingly release an undocumented criminal offender who posed a significant public safety risk back into the community, even if doing so placed me at odds with SB fifty-four. On September second, twenty twenty four, my office received a report involving a fourteen year old girl who disclosed to her cousin that her uncle Diaz Mendoza, age forty eight, had been touching her over her clothing in the vaginal area. A deputy responded the lake where she was present, interviewed the visib- visibly distraught victim. She reported the abuse had been occurring for approximately five months outside of Amador County. My deputy interviewed the suspect and established probable cause to arrest him for felony lewd acts involved in a minor. Two days later, the suspect appeared in court and was released by the judge. In twenty twenty five, I was informed by our probation department that Diaz Mendoza had entered into a plea agreement negotiated by an Amador County Deput- Deputy District Attorney the agreement reduced the case to a misdemeanor offense with credit time served and suspended probation sentence. I was I was advised that the plea agreement was structured at least in part because of my publicly stated position regu- regarding cooperation with ICE and the likelihood that ICE would be notified upon his release. Upon learning of the plea agreement, I immediately contacted ICE and requested the agents take him into custody upon his release from court. Due to the limited notice, ICE was unable to respond that day. However, agents did locate and arrest him approximately two weeks later. We subsequently informed the victim and her mother, both of whom expressed appreciation for our efforts and relief that he would no longer have access to this fourteen year old victim. Since twenty twenty five, I have contacted ICE eight times regarding removals authorized under SB fifty four within my jail. Additionally, under SB fifty four, I have been required required to release sixteen individuals arrested for low level offenses that did not meet the requirements of SB fifty four. My greatest concern as sheriff is that one of these individuals may reoffend and cause another preventable tragedy such as Lincoln Riley and the people that are here with me to my right and my left. Preventable. In my view, public policy should prior prioritize accountability for criminal offenders protection for victims and the safety of law-abiding citizens, I believe it is long overdue that we place greater emphasis on victims' rights, hold offenders accountable, and ensure that public safety remains our highest priority. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Sheriff, and finally we'll hear from Mrs. Gorman.

Uh, my name is Justice Gorman. I'm the Mother of the

Uh, y- can you uh turn on your microphone?

Oh. Hi, my name is Chardon Gorman. I'm sorry. My name is Jessica Gorman. I'm the mother of Chardon Grace Gorman. Chardon was eighteen years old. She was a freshman at Loyola University Chicago. She was beautiful. She was funny, faithful, loving, full of plans to build something with her life. On March nineteenth, Chardon went with friends to the lakefront in Chicago because they hoped they might see the northern lights. She never saw those lights. The man accused of murdering my daughter is Jose Medina, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, who should not have even been in this country. And even after committing a crime and having an outstanding warrant, he was left on the streets of Chicago to murder my innocent American child. But this story, it's not about him. This story is about my Sheridan. It's about how failed border policies, sanctuary city laws, and twisted leaders refused to cooperate with ICE. They sent her to her grave. It's about a government and politicians that forgot their first priority. And the question before this committee is painfully simple. When did protecting our American citizens stop being your first priority? And even more important, why did protecting our American citizens stop being your first priority? I want an explanation, I need one, and I deserve one. But first I want you to know who my Sheridan was. I want you to understand what we all lost because of your mismatched priorities. My husband and I have always joked that our older daughter Madeline is our pride, while Sheridan was our joy. From the moment she was born, Sheridan was pure energy, enthusiasm, laughter, fun. She was the kind of person who made every room brighter, and usually a little louder. Which is why when Sheridan was in kindergarten, I remember going to her first parent-teacher conference. I was a little nervous, because while she was the sweetest little girl you could possibly imagine, she was also the chattiest. I remember sitting down across from my her teacher, bracing myself, and asking with bated breath, " So, how's my Sheridan?" I'll never forget when the teacher looked at me very seriously and said, " I only have one thing to say to you." Ugh, my stomach dropped. Then she said, " Your Sheridan stalks the buddy bench." I remember blinking at her, " I'm sorry, what?" She said, " Your Sheridan stalks the buddy bench." I was totally confused and I asked, um, is that a good thing or is that a bad thing, and what exactly is a buddy bench? And the teacher smiled and said, " It's a beautiful thing." She explained that they had a bench in the play yard. She said that not all kids are as outgoing and confident as your Sheridan, so the children were told that if they wanted to play, or if they felt lonely, left out, shy, they could sit on that bench. And then the other children were told that if they saw someone sitting there, They should go over, talk to them, ask them to play. And apparently Sheridan, my tiny kindergartener, had appointed herself the guardian of that bench. Every day at recess, instead of heading straight to the swings or joining in a game of kickball, my daughter hung back and hovered by the nearby tree, just watching that bench, just waiting, just in case someone might need her. The kids didn't even have a chance to to fully sit down on the bench before Sheridan was rushing over. To take them, you know, to take their hand, pull them away. Girls, boys, first graders, kindergartners, it really didn't matter to her. If the child looked lonely, Sheridan went over. If someone had no one to play with, Sheridan was there. If someone felt invisible, Sheridan saw them. That was my daughter and that is who she was until the day she was stolen from us. And I honestly can't make sense of it. I cannot make peace with it. And in what world does the child who spent her life making sure no one was lonely die terrified and alone on a pier in Chicago? In what world does the girl who saw everyone become invisible to the people in power responsible for protecting her? This cannot be explained away and it cannot be buried beneath a list of unrelated issues that you all paraded before us. Thanks for telling me without telling me that, you know, you're here but you don't wanna be, this is the fourth This is the fourth time you've had angel families. Thanks for telling me you don't care. This cannot be buried under your slogans, your statistics or excuses, and this just can't stand. So today, I bring this back to the buddy bench. I think Congress needs one.

Yeah.

I think every governor, every mayor, every sanctuary city official and politician shifting blame and interest, hiding behind their slogans and talking points should have to all sit on one. And I challenge you all to sit down with me, take my hand, look me in the eye, and then explain to me, because I just don't understand. Explain why people here illegally matter more than your American citizens. Explain why sanctuary sanctuary policies matter more than my Sheridan's life. Explain why cooperation with ICE was too much to ask for. But asking our American parents to bury our children is somehow acceptable. Ask me. I just, I need you to tell me, I want you to imagine that that little girl on the buddy bench, that innocent college freshman with a heart full of compassion and a head full of dreams that was gunned down by an illegal immigrant, I want you to imagine that was your daughter, not mine. What if she was yours? Would you even hesitate for one second to act or to make changes? Might Sheridan spend her whole life choosing others? Today I'm just asking this community this committee and our Congress and our country to choose her. She was worth protecting. She was worth saving. And she was worth your brave vote. To all of those who have supported us, who have prayed for us, who have cried with us, and to those who have had the courage to speak out and say Sheridan's name, thank you. Because every time you say her name, you give a pe- a piece of her back to us. You remind the world that Sheridan was not a talking point. She wasn't a statistic or a headline. She was our daughter. She will always be my sweet sunshine. And if the people who failed her would rather look away than I'm really, then I'm asking the rest of you to look right at her. Here she is. There's she and I.

Uh-huh.

Here she is. This is the take in the day before she died. Say her name. Tell her story and demand better. Because my Sharon and Grace Gorman should still be alive. And no mother should have to stand where I am standing, begging, begging elected leaders to value my child's life after it's already too late. I, I cried when I came into the room, I saw this poster that you made, it says at every stop the system had a chance to stop him. At every step it failed. And my daughter paid for those failures, your failures, with her life. No family should ever have to bury a child because public officials failed to put American lives first. I'm just asking you to choose us. We choose you. We choose you. Choose us. Why does my child matter less than an illegal immigrant? Why? Listen, I have a heart, I love immigrants. Two of my best friends in this whole world are are immigrants. They came here the right way. I absolutely think they they make America beautiful. But my daughter's beautiful too. I need you to think about what these policies are. And I need you to imagine this is your daughter, because I'm very sure you won't be cutting off anyone when they're speaking. You won't, I'd be very sure you won't call this a political stunt. The grief is real. Every day I wake up with unimaginable pain. You know what, you know what I, I wake up in the middle of the night and I and I think, did my daughter cry for me? She, she made it forty feet. She made it forty feet, running for her life. Did she cry out for me? She died on that pavement by her, all by herself, lonely, like bleeding on that pavement. And I will, and I will never, ever rest. I actually have to say that I am devastated. My husband and I were only a couple years away from retirement. I've worked my whole life so hard. All I wanted to do was just enjoy our children, just wanted to enjoy my Sheraton. I'm Madeline. And now I'm bitter. I'm bitter because I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'm a lover. I love children. I love pumping people up and making them feel good about themselves. I'm not racist. I'm not xenophobic. We've done everything right, my husband and I. We taught our daughter to be a wonderful, beautiful person. Her love was extravagant. And now I'm gonna have to spend my last waking moment, I'm gonna have to spend fighting, fighting against these policies, fighting for people to say her name. So, if you have the courage, please come talk to me, come sit on that bench, out by Congress, the bench. Talk to each other.

Hmm.

Talk to each other. We shouldn't be screaming across the room. I mean, we also shouldn't say " but", cuz I have to just say, and I understand that you're here for a reason. I don't understand why it's only the Republican side that cares about our American children. And I know that you're a mother, I know that you're a father, I I deeply value that. But basically what you just did, what you said was, I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter too, I have a son, I I feel your pain. You don't. You don't feel my pain. Because the next words out of your mouth were " but". There's no but when your child is in a coffin. There's no but. And I need you to understand that. And if you ever wanna talk about it, I'm here, I'm gonna buy you a bench, I'm gonna buy, I can put that on the record, I'm gonna buy Congress a bench.

I'm gonna get you.

And they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter. I really wanna know it, cuz I don't understand. Please, I welcome you. I w- I I will listen. I will listen. I care. I care. I just need you to explain it to me because I don't and nor and nor and I fear I will never understand. Thank you.

Thank thank you for your testimony. I can't imagine how difficult this appearance is for you and we thank you for being here today. And uh we'll now proceed under the five minute rule of questions and we'll begin with Mister Tiffany.

Thank you Mister Chairman. Uh thank you Mister Abraham and Mrs. Gorman for being here. Uh we are proud to cite the names of sheridan and katie here before uh this judiciary committee hearing and um mrs. gorman would you say you your neighbors and your community are safer when a governor uh government protects violent criminals and illegal aliens over americans

no

same question mr. abraham

no they're not

Mrs. Gorman, do you believe that your state or this country is safer when criminal illegal aliens are released into our streets?

No.

Mister Abraham.

No, not at all.

So, in uh my home state of Wisconsin, we had a terrible situation, not unlike what you're experiencing, where there's a sanctuary community, uh, Dane County, uh that allowed an illegal immigrant from Venezuela let him free and he was arrested over a hundred miles away in a little community, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. The charges were domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and strangulation. Fortunately, the woman did not die, but it had to be horrific. So, when thinking about that, that we should be concerned with neighboring communities. Should places like Missouri and Indiana and Iowa and Wisconsin be concerned when there's sanctuary policies that are on our borders that may affect, may affect us when we see it happen in our own state, a hundred miles away from a j- uh a sanctuary jurisdiction. Should we be concerned, Mister Abraham, with those policies being carried out in the state of Illinois.

If you care about your citizens, you should be concerned.

Mrs. Gorman.

I sent my daughter to Chicago because I thought it was safe. I s- you hear all the rhetoric in the politics. I sent her there cuz I thought she was safe. No, she wasn't safe. It never would have even occurred to me that this could have happened. Yes, you know, Mister Abram talked about as a parent you worry, I worry about car accidents. You you you worry, you know, that they'll drink too much. You never even conceive that she would be murdered, shot in the back of the head by an illegal immigrant on a pier, going to see the Northern Lights with her friends. Don't even, it's not even something you can even conceive. And I just have to say one thing, cuz it's been plaguing me, and this is how messed up the situation is. This is why I'm sorry. I get so upset when you, with your, with your butts, and you don't wanna talk about this. This is the fourth hearing. Do you know what I'm thankful for? This is so messed up, I'm gonna say, I'm thankful after hearing, I didn't even know what an angel family was, had no idea, never even heard about it. There's so many out here. You know what I'm thankful for? I'm thankful that my daughter was just shot in the back of the head, not raped, murdered, dismembered, put in a, put in a garbage can like Megan Boss, with bleach poured on her and they didn't fire a fighter for fifty days. And you can actually s- dismiss the angel families you can say but hey you don't wanna hear four

hmm

four sessions on ang- angel families I'm sorry you need to you need to I'm actually thankful that my daughter wasn't raped how messed up is that that I'm thankful everyday that she was just murdered not raped and dismembered like think about that like how messed up is that do you know what I thought of this morning when I got up

hmm

What the joy of, anyone have a baby here, the joy of picking out their first outfit that they're gonna wear on their ride home from the hospital. I had to pick out my daughter's last outfit,

Uh-huh.

and she was a fabulous dresser. We had a hundred people come to our home, a hundred friends and family came to her home. We had her cremated actually after. And they all decorated her urn with rhinestones. Peop- all of them put it on there. She's fabulous even in death. But with the first time, all the excitement of having a child and then having people make excuses and buts. I'm sorry. This is unacceptable. I know, you know, there are so many angel families out here, and the day that I have to wake up and be thankful that my daughter was only shot and not raped should tell you something. It's crazy.

Uh, thank you, Mrs. Gorman. And by the way, you used the term " sorry" early on when you answered that question. You never have to apologize. Never apologize for the story that you are delivering to the American people. Mister Chair- Mister Chairman,

I have

Sorry.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back.

Can I just say one thing? I I am sorry. I'm sorry I have to be here. I'm sorry. I'm actually, like I said, I'm a lover. I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'm not a s- public speaker. I'm not someone who ever speaks out about things. I have to I've had to I actually am very bitter that I have to be here, number one, but now I'm gonna have to fight for my daughter. I I'm sorry that I have to be here and that I have to even oppose anyone. Um,

Miss, thank you.

it's crazy.

Uh, Miss Jaibel.

Sorry.

Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. You know, I think I wanna go to a statement that you ended with, Sheriff Redman, uh, that I agree with. Um, and I I believe this is how you said it as well, it's in your written testimony. Public policy should prioritize accountability for criminal offenders, protection for victims, and the safety of law abiding citizens. I agree with that, and I think everybody on this side agrees with that. I think the question really is what creates that environment most effectively. And I spent some time in my opening statement, and I know you did as well, Miss Pierce, talking about how resources are getting taken from different parts of Department of Homeland Security other law enforcement federal law enforcement agencies, um, in order to do uh immigration enforcement that has really focused largely on people who don't have any convictions, but more importantly in this context of sanctuary jurisdictions, has actually hurt law enforcement's ability to do its job at the local level. And so I wanted to go to this question about the central question here is not about whether there should be justice for Mrs. Gorman and Mr. Abraham's daughter's murderers. There absolutely should be. I don't think there's any disagreement about that anywhere on this bench, Democrat or Republican. The central question is what gets us that accountability across the board, for everybody. And so the Trump administration's approach has been to force every state, city, and locality to use their inf- their resources, precious resources, quite small in many jurisdictions to enforce federal immigration law. In Mister Abraham's case, it sounds like actually that was a Chicago, that sounds like a state of Illinois issue, but uh the the whole question of where local law enforcement prioritizes resources and what keeps us safer, my question for you is does the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement, which is forcing local jurisdictions to enforce immigration law, is that what keeps us most safe and prevents the kinds of things we're hearing about today?

No, it does not. And I I agree, the central question here is not only just about accountability, right? It's about public safety. What can keep us all the safest?

Right.

And so there's a few different problems with what the Trump administration did ha is doing and how they're approaching that and I'll touch on on two of them. The first is the redirection of federal resources to immigration enforcement above violent crimes. This administration has moved tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers away from their primary duties of going after um human trafficking, of going after child sexual exploitation, of going after cyber crimes, terrorism, violent crime, and instead focused them on immigration enforcement. And that immigration enforcement work unfortunately is not focused on the worst of the worst rather it's focused on rounding up as many individuals as possible. So we're neglecting terrorists and we're instead focusing on individuals who have violated a civil immigration law. The second issue is that this administration is bullying jurisdictions to fully cooperate with immigration enforcement despite those jurisdictions' considerations about their own resources. Police departments have limited resources and they use those to decide how much and what level of cooperation they're going to give to the Trump administration. Not only that, they need to look at their relationships with their communities. Is a certain level of cooperation with ICE going to harm the trust that they have established with their local communities? Is it going to redirect the priorities that they've decided are best to keep safety in their communities? Those are the things that these local jurisdictions need to decide before they decide what level of cooperation they'll give ICE, and unfortunately this administration doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that. They would rather bully these jurisdictions into that full

As well as concerns about how much they would have to pay in lawsuits if what they do is actually unconstitutional. Why is it dangerous to have policies in place? This gets at the community trust piece. Why is it dangerous to have policies in place that prevent huge swaths of the community, both undocumented folks as well as family members or friends of undocumented people who may live in the same household, um, from feeling secure and calling nine a li- n- uh, nine one one? What happens in that situation to the safety of all community members.

So police can't be everywhere, right? They l- rely on community members to be their eyes and ears, to report crimes, to be witnesses, to provide testimony. Um, and when those individuals are no longer willing to cooperate with the police, when they think that a call to nine one one is going to make their lives worse, that means that those police, their reach into the, that network, into the community is then limited.

Thank you. Uh, my time has expired. I yield back.

Mister Biggs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here today. Mrs. Gorman, thank you. Particularly, Mr. Abraham, thank you. And I appreciate, Miss Gorman, the way you called called uh folks across the aisle out. I want to uh uh tell you that this isn't just the fourth hearing. We actually had a field hearing in Phoenix, Arizona on this, where we had angel families come in and testify. Do you know how many uh from Democrats came? Not one. Zero. No one came. They didn't care enough to come to that to that uh field hearing. What a shame. What is it? Really, really too bad. They needed to hear what what had gone our way. I think we had seven families at that one. Well, so federal law, we got it up here. Right here, a little bit low b behind me here, says clearly no city, county or state can block its officers from sharing immigration information with the federal government. It's not complicated. Ms. Pierce, Illinois Trust Act tells local officers they can't officers, they cannot share uh information with ICE. Is this uh is that a direct violation of federal law?

It is not. Eight USC thirteen seventy-three di directs that local officials cannot restrict officials within their jurisdiction from sharing information about immigration status.

They i i so you don't think this so if if i Illinois' law their uh trust act which says they cannot provide information in response to any immigration agent's inquiry or request for information regarding in any individual in the agency's custody. They can't provide that. You don't think that's a violation of thirteen seventy-three. Yeah, I guess that's I guess that's why things are so screwed up. Um and let me just tell you that uh we we we're gonna go along here and talk about Sheridan Gorman and Katie Abraham because I'm telling you and I'm asserting that this has not been settled by any court. Your statement's not been settled by any court. Um, and it's under review still. And I don't believe that the families of Sheridan or Katie or any other angel family would say, yeah, you should be allowed to withhold information. That's what you saw in this particular case, Sheriff Redman. You ever see that? Your state, they're trying to prevent you from, uh, providing this information to ice or other federal authorities

yes sir

give us an example please

so we're we're able to share some limited information um the gentleman that I uh call him gentleman the suspect that was arrested in my uh my jurisdiction for the uh loot axe with a child uh that information under sp fifty-four that I provided to them uh was not legally I was not legally able to provide that information.

So we've got a set of facts here. Jose Medina Medina entered this country illegally. He had no address, no ID, and no legal status. Went to Chicago. He was arrested for shoplifting. Chicago had him in custody. ICE was never notified. He walked out the door. Got an OR, if I understand right. Never sh- showed back up for his court date. Nobody went looking for him because that's the way it is, it's a shoplifting case. Nobody's gonna go look for a shoplifter. Less than three years later, he shot Sheridan Gorman in the head in a Chicago park. Now you got eight eight USC thirteen twenty four makes it a federal crime to knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield an illegal alien from detection. Were those facts met, do you think, Miss Pierce? When Chicago took Medina Medina into custody, they knew he was in the country illegally. They knew he had a criminal charge pending. They released him back onto the street. Did they shield? Do you think they were shielding?

No, sir. When Medina was booked into custody, those fingerprints were shared with the Department of Homeland Security and with ICE. ICE had access to that information.

Did they transfer him to ICE? The answer is no. So the question would be, what point does at what point does systematically refusing to notify ICE knowing an individual is unlawfully present, has a criminal record, cross into shielding someone from detection. That's that's really the question here. And what would you can take that position and say, well, you know what, we just don't think that's a that's right. We and and that's what a sanctuary jurisdiction does. They say we're not going to provide that information if ICE holds has a detainer. we're not gonna transfer them to them? Because they want only a criminal arrest warrant. They don't want an ice hold. They don't want an ice detainer. They want an actual criminal arrest warrant. Those are two distinct two distinctive things. But what you do is is you allow a very dangerous illegal p- alien back onto the street wreaking havoc in our communities. And that's the piss and shame of it all.

Gentlemen, this time is expired. Mister Raskin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Ms. Pierce, I remember when um we started uh this term of Congress and Elon Musk and Doge wiped out about five hundred million dollars of grants that were going to victim assistance groups crime fighting groups local police departments. Nobody could quite explain why the particular Doge employee did that, but they wiped out about a half a billion dollar dollars of grants going to help the families of victims and to try to stop crime. Um, can you discuss what happened there? What were those grants? Uh, why did that happen and what kind of effect does that have when money that we've appropriated from Congress for this purpose and the grants are programmed, they're wiped out. What effect does that have?

Sure. So it was actually eight hundred and twenty million in Department of Justice grants that they canceled, five hundred million of which had already been granted. So that means the organizations that were receiving those grants had already started hiring staff renting spaces the communities that were going to receive those public safety grants had already started relying on that money coming in, and all of that was wiped away. I've recently been working with the Victim Rights Law Center, which is an amazing non-profit organization in Massachusetts. They have lost three attorneys so far because of the way that the Department of Justice is messing with these public safety grants. That means Victims, hundreds of victims of sexual assault and rape no longer have attorneys, because that public safety funding has disappeared.

And it, but it's not just victim assistance groups. It's also crime fighting groups and police departments had, uh, millions of dollars of grants that were canceled, correct? It's my recollection.

Absolutely, but yes.

Um, so have the Office of Justice Programs grants from fiscal year twenty twenty five been reinstated and distributed?

So, we were talking about earlier about canceled grants, right? There's a national another problem with the Department of Justice grants in that they have significantly slowed down the amount of grants that are going across the United States not only for organizations but also for police departments and the fiscal year twenty twenty-five Department of Justice grants that go through the Office of Justice programs have not been fully granted I don't know.

But why is that happening?

The Department of Justice has not spoken to why this has happened. This is an unprecedented thing that has caused disruption across our country, and the Department of Justice is not telling anyone why they have been delaying this. It's more than two billion dollars in grants that have not gone

Two billion, did you say?

Two billion.

So wha- what would that two billion dollars have been able to do for local police forces around the country?

It would be used to hire officers, it would be used to train officers, it would be used to support officer wellness programs, it would be used to support resources for law enforcement, such as body cameras, different things that they desperately need.

Um. Our system is complex because it's a federal system, so we have national government, department of justice, federal policies, and then we have state and local policies. Um, and there you described this tension, this hostility that's creating problems. Can you discuss how jurisdictions normally cooperate with the federal government in different ways, um, and how does it best work?

Sure. So, I mean, talking specifically about immigration enforcement,

Sure.

like I said during my testimony, every single law enforcement jurisdiction across the United States cooperates with immigration enforcement. Every time someone is booked, that information is sent to the Department of Homeland Security and to ICE. And then jurisdictions from there need to decide how much more of their local resources they will lend to ice and immigration enforcement uh to help ice do its job.

Okay, will you just help us understand the different resources that are available to the federal government and then to local government police forces?

Sure, so as I said during my testimony um this congress has provided ice with a hundred and thirteen point five billion to do their job to enforce immigration law in the United States. And that is more than the combined annual operating budget of every single law and local law enforcement jurisdiction in America. So we're talking about local police departments that have limited amount of resources and their primary duty is public safety. Their primary duty is not immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, we have a federal agency who has a budget larger than all but four militaries in the world. Um, and their primary duty is in civil immigration enforcement.

So, but what would you suggest we work on on a bipartisan basis in Congress in order to reduce um criminal violence by undocumented immigrants but in general because, uh, there are people suffering these tragedies generally across the country, what can we do to bring down the crime rate generally in all of the violence?

Those resources that I receive should be targeted at the biggest public safety threats. Right? We shouldn't have a federal agency that is running amok across the United States trying to fulfill a quota to get as many people into detention and deportation as possible. That's not making us safer. In addition, we need a federal government that's willing to work with local law enforcement jurisdictions. We have had ICE in the past have um compromise and communication be their primary driver when they're working with local jurisdictions. That goes a lot farther than the bullying that we're seeing from this administration. That only increases the distrust that we're seeing at the federal level between the federal level and the state and local level.

Thank you. You're back, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, Mr. Ryan.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Uh, Mr. Redman, thank you for your service in law enforcement. Uh, Ms. Gorman, Mr. Abraham, sorry for your loss. I've gotten to know all too often too many angel families, too many people in my home state of Texas who have lost loved ones. due to the absolute um abject failure of uh leaders in both parties to be very clear, but I'll be a little partisan here, very specifically the previous administration in particular and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in their absolute refusal to secure the border. And Ms. Gorman, it struck me that you noted that we had this uh poster um and and it alluded to the extent to which the federal government in particular and law enforcement in this country um failed you and failed your daughter, more importantly, at multiple levels across the board. And I think that's really important, especially in light of the questioning we just heard from uh the ranking member of the full committee with uh Miss Pierce, uh who is appearing for us here today. Miss Pierce, now you worked uh previously for USCIS in the previous administration. Is that correct?

During both the previous administration and this administration, yes.

And and and you um have been testifying here at the questioning about the resources and the lack of resources um, for local law enforcement and grants not being given out, but then dollars that have been set aside for ICE. I mean, the question here is how much taxpayer funds should have to be spent right now? How many taxpayer dollars of current American taxpayers should have to be spent to go round up illegal aliens?

I think unfortunately the the better question is how how that money should be spent, not how much.

Wait, wait a minute, wait a minute, no, no, I actually think it matters how much. Because with all due respect, Miss Pierce, you were working under the previous administration, if I remember correctly, with safe mobility offices. Safe mobility offices. Now these were offices that were directed and designated towards helping people move through our security system to get to the United States. To end run the processes along the way, to exploit asylum laws, to exploit parole laws, in order to funnel people into the United States. That was precisely what was happening in the previous administration. We know this to be true. And then to sit here and listen to this exchange about what we're doing with our resources really strikes me as pretty hypocritical, given the extent to which we have dangerous people in the United States that have been killing innocent Americans because the previous administration and the people who worked for it were working directly, specifically to end-run the laws of the United States, putting the dangerous people on the streets that resulted in the death of Ms. Gorman's daughter and Mr. Abraham's family. I've gotten to know Jocelyn Nungray as a dear friend, or or or her or her mother, Alexis Nung- Nungray as a dear friend, for the loss of her daughter, Jocelyn. We're well advised of Lake and Riley. We're well advised of those who have lost love as Kayla Hamilton and many others, and we're hearing more here. And you're right, Ms. Gorman, we can't have enough. We can keep having hearings and keep allowing these people to put the pictures up of the people who have been murdered because we allowed our borders to be used as some sort of plaything. And now today, the United States Supreme Court manufacture, manufacturing out of thin air a complete abomination of a ruling by the Chief Justice, suggesting that you can simply become a citizen from being born on dirt, thereby validating the abhorrent practice of baby factories and moving people here to be born to be able to become a citizen, leaving us under no choice but to do what we must do to say, pause immigration, just stop it. Stop all immigration, because if it's gonna be exploited for people to come here when they're pregnant, if it allows somebody who's the working for the Chinese Communist Party and to come here and have children to become American citizens, and then have our laws exploited like they were under the previous administration, it is why this Congress should act to pause all immigration, this Congress act immediately to codify what the president has been doing, to close the loopholes under asylum and parole, the catch and release policies, and to codify those that a future Biden and Mayorkas administration cannot do to the American people what these radical leftists did to the American people. And then dare sit here and testify, under questioning by my colleagues, that we need to have more taxpayer money going to the local jurisdictions to make up for what they caused, and then criticize the administration in this Congress for putting money aside for ICE and Border Patrol to do the job that administration wouldn't do. And by the way, get that funding by having to figure out how to use reconciliation to do it, because Democrats refuse to appropriate money to secure our communities and to make sure that our people would not be murdered. It's the absolute chutzpah to be here testifying, having had a hand in South America working to end run our laws and put people into the United States that resulted in the deaths of the American people. Uh, you're back.

Can't bring this back, Mister Nantler.

Mister Chairman, uh, let me begin by offering my deepest condolences to Miss Gorman and Mister Abraham. The loss of a child is unimaginable. and is something no parent should ever face.

Yeah, good deal.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans want to coerce states and localities into furthering the Trump administration's extreme anti-immigrant agenda. But with masked agents murdering American citizens in the streets, and tearing children away from their parents, and detention facilities that have their highest death rate in decades, and fail to meet the basic medical and sanitary needs of detainees, it is no wonder that many states and localities have chosen not to use their limited resources to aid and abet the Trump administration's reckless chaotic and inhumane mass deportation campaign. Some communities have concluded that certain forms of cooperation with federal immigration authorities such as detaining immigrants past as sentences without a judicial order raise constitutional concerns and can even put them at risk of legal liability. In many cases, states and localities have determined that taking on the federal responsibility to enforce immigration laws would destroy trust between immigrants and local law enforcement, which would make everyone less safe. They believe that their communities are at greater risk when a victim of domestic violence is afraid to ask the police for protection from her abuser, for fear of dep- deportation. Or when witnesses to a murder refuse to assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator because they are afraid their immigration status will be discovered. But Republicans actually want to punish these communities by denying them billions of dollars in funding that they need to protect public safety. And federal immigration authorities are perfectly capable of enforcing federal law on their own. In fact, they are swimming in money. Congress has given them two hundred forty billion dollars in little more than a year with no guardrails attached. With this money, these agencies have assembled a massive force consisting of tens of thousands of agents who have flooded our streets to carry out Donald Trump's brutal and reckless campaign to strike fear in immigrant communities across the country. That is what the committee should be examining today. Miss Pierce, immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, and DHS has unprecedented resources and historic levels of funding. Does the federal government have the resources and personnel necessary to enforce immigration law, or does it need to usurp state resources?

As you said, sir, ICE has unprecedented resources. I think at the moment we should assess how what they can do with those resources, before we have them usurp local resources.

Thank you. Miss Pierce, the Trump administration claims that it's only going after the worst of the worst and targeting criminals. But according to ICE's own data, the majority of immigrants they have detained have no criminal record. this administration's mass deportation agenda is wreaking havoc on communities across the country. And now Republicans want to force state, cities and localities to participate in this lawless and dangerous scheme.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is the, no, is the Trump administration really going after the worst of the worst?

No, sir. Uh, according to ICE's own data, more than seventy percent of individuals in detention have no criminal records, and another recent analysis said only three percent of those individuals in detention

Ms. Piers, can you explain why administrative ICE detainers often raise constitutional concerns and create and can create liability for states, cities and localities?

Because they don't create new legal authority for a new detention. If an individual is done with their criminal custody, then the local law enforcement agency needs a new authority to continue dating detaining that individual. A detainer is just a suggestion from ICE or a request from ICE. that that local jurisdiction continue to hold that individual. It doesn't create a new legal authority and as a result, some jurisdictions have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in civil liabilities and settlements for holding individuals beyond the time that they were supposed to be released from custody.

Thank you, Miss Pierce. The Trump administration has diverted over twenty-eight thousand officers from their law enforcement roles in the federal government to do immigration enforcement. How does this shifting focus from criminal enforcement to immigration enforcement heard public safety.

I I don't I th I feel like very few people would argue that taking officers who were focused on violent crime child exploitation human trafficking firearms trafficking fentanyl smuggling and putting them instead to focus on civil immigration enforcement uh doesn't increase public safety it pulls individuals away from their primary public safety missions also unfortunately this administration has failed to ask answer questions from congress about how many exactly agents were pulled away from their primary public safety duties, and what analysis, if any, was done prior to pulling them about what that would do to their primary public safety missions. What would it do to the open cases that they abandoned to focus instead on increasing immigration enforcement? We haven't heard a word from this administration about whether or not they're weighing those important public safety considerations.

Thank you, Miss Pierce. My time has expired. I yield back.

Get me this back, Mister Van Drew.

Thank you, Chairman. You know, I'm gonna say it's tell the truth time, and first of all I wanna thank you, especially, Mister Abraham, Miss Gorman, you must be so tired, so worn out. It's like probably a surreal world, it's like hell on earth, I and you know what? Condolences don't do it. The only thing we can ever do is by actions, because the truth matters. And you're in a place right now, Washington DC, and I'm not gonna go cuz I only have five minutes, you could talk about it for hours, where a lot of times the truth doesn't matter. You hear so much BS and so much debating and political philosophy, and the reality is you guys are here cuz you don't want other kids to die. That's all it's about. You have somebody who d- both of you, I don't necessarily believe, were usually people who wanna be having orations and debates and speaking out, and all the, forgive me, BS goes on around you and it swirls around you, man, it gets old. It gets old. But it is tell the truth time. So the truth is, it doesn't matter if we do this four times, forty times, four hundred times, or four thousand damn times, it needs to be done because innocent children and people have lost their lives or have been dismembered or have been raped or have been injured. And it couldn't, it didn't have to be that way. I don't know how damn clear, you made it so clear, you both articulated it so well. There there were no words. So, we know what the truth's about. The truth is, in sanctuary cities, people die because it's a sanctuary city. Uh, you know, Miss Pierce, forgive me, but we have people that were on the street because it was a sanctuary city, or a sanctuary county, or a sanctuary uh state, or jurisdiction, whatever it was. And people are not walking and living on this earth because of that policy. So, and I'm, I don't mean to be mean to you. I understand you're just doing your job here, but all the politically left gobbledy-goop and the statistics and all the stuff you're moving around, that doesn't mean anything to them. Look to the right and look to the left and tell them about all your political stuff and all that you've done all that left-wing political nonsense. doesn't mean anything to them. Their kids aren't alive. That's all that matters to them. That's all that will matter for the rest of their lives. The truth is somebody said, there, we don't know the definition of a sanctuary city. Yes, we do. It's a place where we don't cooperate with federal officials. And when we have somebody who's a bad person who broke a crime, besides being illegal, we don't cooperate. You know why there are so many problems in the blue cities? Because They don't cooperate because they don't, the ICE does not wanna go out and have crowd control. They don't wanna be involved in that. They don't wanna have to do any of that. They want people when they're incarcerated and they're illegal to be notified, so they can send them out of the country, cuz I don't even want them imprisoned here. We can't afford it. They shouldn't be here. We pay for their clothing, we pay for their housing in some cases, we pay for their transportation. In New Jersey, where I'm from, it makes me sick to my stomach, we're paying for a legal defense fund

I'll pay for hands-on, but I'll get it back.

for illegal criminals. We pay for their education, we can't afford it, we're tired of it, but your issues are even more important cuz it's life and death. Miss Pierce, I I and I and I don't think you're gonna do uh uh I have a request, but I don't think you'll do it. I'd really love you to look to your right. Cuz they'll look to you and look to your left. and tell them about all your numbers and your all your grants and all your BS and why we shouldn't arrest and deport people who are here illegally and commit crimes. Do you wanna do that? Explain to them and also explain to the sheriff why you're correct and he's wrong even though he's been on the ground and in the street. Have you served in law enforcement? Have you been a law enforcement official?

No, sir.

Okay. He has. He's seen it. He's been on the street. He's seen the blood and the guts. This isn't some philosophical thing out in space we're talking about. These are real people who are really getting hurt because of bad politics. I I have a que- I got time, I think, for one question. Um, in your testimony, you listed, and this appears to you, four practical concerns that you say drive the needs for sanctuary policies. We should have sanctuary policies because of your complicated formula here, community trust, local control, legal liability, and staffing. And can you look at them and say that those four pillars of your thesis, of your idea, of your think tank are worth the lives of their children?

The children.

I'm just asking you a question. Please answer.

Yeah, I I would love to answer it. The children of Mister Abraham and Mrs. Gorman should be alive. The fact that they are not is a travesty, and I'm extremely apologetic about that.

But it's because of your policies. You're the one doing it. No offense, but you are.

I'm here today to testify to the American people and to Congress about how federal policy should operate I'm an expert on federal policy and I think it

I'm out of time. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back. Uh, Miss Ross.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, um, I, too, very sincerely wanna express my condolences to Mrs. Gorman and to Mr. Abraham. What happened to your children should never have happened. And, Mrs. Gorman, I look forward to sitting on the bench. Um, I do wanna share because, um, I I know every single one of my police chiefs and I know my sheriff. I do wanna share how important it is that our local law enforcement get funding and get grants, so they can prevent crimes, respond to crimes, and make sure our communities are safe. And that is from everybody who commits crimes. Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, American citizens, we need to make sure we give our law enforcement at the local level, closest to the community, the tools that they need. And every single time I can get a community project for my local law enforcement, I do it. I am, however, very concerned that the Trump administration has stopped some of the grants to local law enforcement, to help hire new officers, to get the equipment that they need. I I understand that we now have unprecedented unprecedented investment in ICE and CBP and that there's a whole lot of hiring and bonuses. My local law enforcement sometimes loses some of their best people to ICE and CBP, but it's a free country and take the job that you think you should be doing, I think that's fine. But I wanna know a little bit more about these grants and um I was concerned Miss Pierce, I didn't know you were gonna mention that North Carolina, which is my home state, was one of the states that hasn't gotten grants. We're not a sanctuary city state. So could you talk a little bit more about the grants that my state's lost? Because we're not doing the things that my fo- my friends on the other side of the aisle claim are so bad.

Absolutely. So the the grants I mentioned that have been delayed, the fiscal year twenty twenty five grants the four point five billion that should have been given out more than nine months ago. They actually should be going to every single state in the country. I was listing in my testimony the countries represented by the majority on this committee because I think that this is a real issue. What did oh the the states you mean. I'm sorry, the states, thank you. Yeah. Represented by the majority on this committee because I think this is a real and important issue that this committee should be examining. But every single state in the United States is missing public safety grant funding that should have been given to them more than nine months ago.

And could you tell me what that grant funding, um, would go toward?

So funding from the Office of Justice programs goes to a wide variety of, um, resources that help protect local s- safety. They go to law enforcement officers to help with hiring, to help with officer training, to help with officer wellness. They also go to organizations out in the community that help represent individuals. Um, it also goes to, um, organizations that help prevent gun violence, a variety of issues, all designed to increase public safety in the United States.

Okay. And I wanted to ask a - I only have about a minute and a half, but you briefly mentioned, um, how there's been diversion from child exploitation cases. Could you explain how agents have been pulled off of child exploitation cases?

Absolutely. So, homeland security investigations is a wing of ICE. Unfortunately, this administration has pulled many of the individuals who specialize in the specific crimes that HSI focuses on to instead focus on immigration enforcement and that includes individuals focused on child exploitation cases these are very specialized agents. um that work on these cases when they leave them the cases can't just be like picked back up at a later time. Instead the evidence gets outdated, more children are vulnerable to exploitation, and predators get longer to work on them. So it's extremely concerning that this administration would pull investigators from those cases.

And have they been pulled from human trafficking cases?

Yes, absolutely. So Homeland Security investigations, which has lost so many agents, to instead focus on civil immigration enforcement, also focuses on human trafficking, drug smuggling, um, cartels, a variety of issues that are very important to the public safety of the United States.

Okay, thank you, and I yield back.

Okay, I'll yield back. Uh, Mr. Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Miss Gorman, thank you for being here today, Mister Abraham. Certainly sorry for your loss. Uh, Sheriff, we hear a lot of talk about grants and funding, but It seems like to me you have a bigger problem with some of the laws, actually. You you may have the resources to do some things sometimes, but it it seems like state laws, sanctuary states and cities and communities actually create a bigger hurdle for you sometime. Uh what specific authority or co- cooperation do you need to prevent a removable, or to um s- you need to prevent a removable offender from being released back into the community before us can take lawful custody?

Thank you. So we we don't spend a whole lot of resources on any type of immigration enforcement. We have no authority to do that. So when I keep hearing that our resources are tapped, what what they're actually tapped into is when they come into our custody. That's where we're getting hit by these sanctuary laws where it is impacting my budget, precious jail bed spaces. That has a huge impact. It's not that we are out there doing any type of enforcement. We never have and we never will. That's a federal component of the government. But what what we need to have happen is those low-level offenses that don't fall within California SB fifty-four, the sixteen I mentioned, and uh Miss Pierce did did put out some numbers. So out of seven that I g- gave over to ICE, I had sixteen that I h- could not turn over because they did not meet the low-level or the high-level offenses where I could cooperate with ICE and those were released back in into the community. I need that to change.

And you know, I d- I was talking to a judge, he's a friend of mine, and under the prior am- administration, he would actually have people in his courtroom that were driving under the influence that were hearing illegally and very often if he turned them over they would turn them take them down the road and turn them loose Angel and Jeremy C actually died in my community. A drunk driver, Mister Abram, much like what you described, uh they had him, they turned him loose, he was a repeat offender, and then he was back out on the street again and ultimately killed two newlyweds, young newlyweds. Ms. Gorman, I um I understand that the individual that murdered Sheridan had been in prior custody and they had been released. Do you wanna tell me a little bit about the details and then, if you don't mind, tell us what real accountability looks like to your families and to the communities when we have these sanctuary jurisdictions.

Sure. Um I just have to say that I'm not a lawmaker and I'm not a politician, but one of the things that I uh search on chatGPT of all things when we found out the children was murdered by an illegal immigrant and when we found out what angel families were I was curious so one night I went online and I said how many people have been killed by illegal immigrants in Chicago, or in Illinois, I did both. Do you know what the answer was? Without being you know point blank it basically said the Chicago police are not allowed to track that information, they're not allowed to ask. So we don't know. The answer is we don't know how many people have been killed by illegal immigrants in Chicago or in Illinois. In my opinion, that's the biggest part. We keep talking about programs being taken away and funding. It's about cooperation. It's about sitting on that bench together and just saying I'm gonna tell you my side, you tell me yours, and let's find a way to cooperate. I don't think that l- that the sanctuary cities are cooperating. Um, yes, this man apparently came across the border and was actually asked the questions, which apparently you would know about because you were help facilitating people coming over illegally. Um, asked the questions whether, you know, they claim asylum or they in danger and and need to be rescued by the United States, and this man actually answered no, and yet we took him anyway. There's so many steps. Yes, this man was arrested, he. Um, he was arrested when he came to Chicago for stealing at a Macy's apparently, and then we, because of cashless bail pro- um policies, they just released him back on the street. The original intent, I believe, of cashless bail was that these people are from our community, so the chances of them coming back to our court are high because they're part of the community. That doesn't apply to illegal immigrants. This man didn't have an address. The fact that he was even out on out, s- released on his own recogn- uh recognizance, how do we know this man's not even using a different name? We we trust that the name he gave this per- that he gave himself is Jose Medina Medina. There's so much wrong with these policies, cashless bail, sanctuary cities, it's a it's a roundabout. Um, the sad thing is that I've had to educate myself, my husband. We've had to educate ourselves on immigration law. I really It's disgusting. There's so many little loopholes and, you know, the fact that Chicago's not even allowed to ask if someone who commits a murder is an illegal immigrant. They're not allowed to store that information. That should tell you everything you need to know. It's an evasive game of shifting cards and shifting blame.

Oh.

And frankly, yeah, sitting here when, yes, I'm thankful my daughter wasn't dismembered, not, you know, I need people to think about that. You don't have to be a parent to feel the pain that we're feeling and the betrayal. One of the things that happened, I'm sorry I've d- I've done this, but one of the things that happened is we're in Chicago getting ready to claim my daughter's daughter's body, and the mayor there is naming a truck " Abolish Ice", standing and laughing and joking while my daughter was just murdered there. Like, what?

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gorman.

General, it's time to expand.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, Mr. Not.

Sorry about that.

No, no. Uh, Miss Gorman. Uh, Mister Abraham, thank you for your testimony today. Sheriff, thank you for your service. Miss Pierce, thank you for being here. I um, again, I say this often as the father of of two precious girls, I can't imagine being in your chair. And I'm sorry because again we have um not only a refusal to apologize for the policies, but we're trying to bake in the lie that these crimes were unavoidable. I mean, that's the lie that no one will talk about. Both of these crimes were avoidable. They should never have happened. And unfortunately for my colleagues on the other side, had President Trump been in office from two thousand through two thousand twenty-four, both of your daughters would be alive. That's the elephant in the room here. That is the absolute elephant in the room. I mean, the idea that these crimes are unavoidable is one of the biggest lies that I can't really tolerate anymore. I really can't. I mean, look at Jose Medina. Apprehended by the Border Patrol on May ninth, two thousand twenty three, he told immigration officials he did not have any fear of harm or death. He was marked by Border Patrol as someone who was likely to abscond. He asked to be deported to Columbia. He could not provide any point of contact inside the United States. But the Democrats behind Biden and Harris programmatically ushered him into the country,

My God, I'm just gonna look at the phone.

I never said that.

paying, paying for his health care, his food, his clothing. And my colleagues here today on the other side will not it was avoidable. He was arrested for theft. He did not show up to court. Two crimes. Not a conviction. This is very important. It was not a conviction. Two crimes. They say we don't deport anybody unless they have a conviction. Well, it's very hard to convict someone when you don't prosecute them. He then murdered a precious American child, a young lady. for doing nothing more than looking at the Northern Lights. Again, it's the biggest lie that's being told in Congress is that these crimes are unavoidable. You know? The second case, Missi- Miss- Mister Abraham's daughter. You said that Mister Boll was was deported once before. Do you know what he was deported for?

I don't know why. I can't get that information from Illinois. Uh, but he was using evidence.

You can't get it, you can't get it from Illinois?

No, I can't get anything from Illinois.

I wonder why. Yeah.

But um, he was also using aliases. He wasn't,

Yep.

he was presenting himself as a Ne- Mexican national, not a Guatemalan national.

Yep.

Federal agencies knew that.

Yep.

State didn't bother checking.

Yep. Well, I can tell both of you I did work in the Department of Justice, under President Obama, under President Trump, and under President Biden. And it was a programmatic effort to bring as many people into the country as they could and to keep them here regardless of what they did. And I do have to ask you, Miss Pierce, one question. You said that sanctuary jurisdictions do not prevent ICE or immigration enforcement. Do you stand by that comment?

Yes, sir.

We have heard testimony in this committee of sanctuary jurisdictions that consider immigration consequences before they finalize cases, before they charge cases, before they plead cases. Are you aware of that?

Yes, sir.

Will you condemn that?

I think that both U. S. citizens and immigrants should be charged and treated.

But I I didn't ask that. Will you condemn considering immigration policies before charging or resolving cases?

I don't think immigration should be a consideration when we're talking about criminal law.

Because when they do that, that does affect immigration enforcement, correct?

We're not talking about criminal law. We're not talking about civil immigration enforcement.

I'm talking about criminal illegal immigrants, ma'am. Someone sat in that very chair and said, I will release somebody if they're an illegal immigrant and they're charged with a serious felony. I questioned them two weeks ago. That would affect immigration enforcement, would it not?

ICE can pick them up either way,

No, it, see you

whether or not they're charged, or

Asking a Biden official to talk about border policy

Thank you. General, this is inspired, Miss Scanlon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I feel like I shouldn't be surprised by some of the wild stories and fantasies that Republicans on this committee have embraced when they talk about sanctuary cities to really ramp up political drama, even if it's at the expense of individuals' pain and personal tragedy. But it is always jarring to hear the law lies. being embraced. According to our Republican colleagues, most immigrants to our country are criminals, despite the overwhelming evidence, and as even Mrs. Gorman said, we have good immigrants among us. So we can be really, so they are, they are, you know, Exactly, they're criminals. but that distinction seems to get lost on this committee. Um, evidence is immigrants are actually more law abiding than native born Americans, overall, and we have the fact that over seventy percent of the immigrants by this administration actually have no criminal record, either here or in their home countries. According to our Republican colleagues, sanctuary policies block ICE from doing its job. According to our Republican colleagues, elected officials in cities with so-called sanctuary jurisdictions are scheming to protect immigrant criminals at the expense of their own constituents, or they're not prosecuting immigrants who commit crimes. How could any of that actually be possible? No one would agree to elect officials who deliberately make their own communities less safe. And no one would agree to live in such places. Law enforcement professionals are not in the practice of endangering their communities by allowing criminals, no matter where they came from, to run rampant. So these arguments become a complete distortion of the truth about policies that cities and states put in place to improve trust, cooperation and ultimately safety in those communities. And here's the reality. Over and over again, congressional Republicans have used this committee to support the Trump administration as it tries to force state and local law enforcement to use their own limited resources to do the federal government's job. Even though they've sent almost a quarter trillion dollars to DHS and ICE to support this administration's chaotic, out of control, mass deportation agenda that both doesn't go after the worst of the worst, and has actively harmed, endangered, and even killed innocent people, including American citizens. And in doing so, our colleagues have supported the defunding of law enforcement by blocking resources for local police, and diverting resources at the federal level for fighting child trafficking, terrorism, drug trafficking, corporate overreach, fraud, and more. So, Miss Pierce, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, but I think it's pretty well established now that there isn't even a single definition for that term. Can you describe for us what sanctuary policies actually do? what their purpose is, where they have been adopted, and what effect do they have?

Thank you. So jurisdictions adopt sanctuary policies or policies in which they limit the amount that they cooperate with civil immigration enforcement in order to protect their own resources to protect their criminal and civil liability, in order to protect um their communities and the s- trust that they have established with their local communities. those policies limit how much they lend their resources to ICE to do civil immigration enforcement.

So, I'm just trying to make plain or understandable how, um, sanctuary policies protect local resources. So if how how does that work? How does, um, going the extra yard well, first of all, are there any jurisdictions in the country that you're aware of that, actually violate federal law with respect to cooperating with ICE where it's required by law?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Okay, not that I'm aware of either. Um, but there's this middle ground where ICE would like local jurisdictions to take extra steps to detain people longer on the local dime or to take other actions that actually cost our city and state's money can you talk about that a little bit?

Yeah, absolutely. So an ICE detainer, for example, requesting uh that a local jurisdiction hold someone beyond the time that they would be in criminal custody, that takes up jail space as well as personnel time, and then it also subjects subjects that local jurisdiction to legal liability, um for which they can be charged hundreds of millions of dollars in uh liabilities or in uh civil settlements.

So that legal liability is if For example, ICE wants someone detained who shouldn't be detained?

If ICE fails to establish probable cause or another legal authority to hold someone beyond the time that they would be in criminal custody, yes, that local jurisdiction holds the legal liability for holding that individual beyond their time in custody.

Mm. General lady, his time has expired. Mister Frey.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Uh, really appreciate the witnesses' Miss Gorman, Mister Abraham, you all being here today sharing that is incredibly brave, it's not a a diff- or it's not an easy thing to do, so I appreciate you being here and talking about your children, talking about the failures of the system and what would have resulted if we had actually done our job, if the government had done its job. Miss Pierce, the ranking member of this subcommittee uh has sponsored legislation in the past to abolish ICE. Do you believe that we should abolish ICE?

No, sir.

Um, do you uh so when when people call ICE uh uh slave camps or the Gestapo, do you believe that that is an accurate reflection of ICE?

I think there are a lot of problems with the current approach to immigration enforcement but no I would not use those words.

What do you think, as as the Democrat witness here today, which is that you would disagree with the ranking member of the subcommittee and other members of this committee in this congress that want to abolish ICE. Why do you think that we should not abolish ICE?

I think immigration enforcement has a role in keeping us all safe, and a role in the proper function of our government.

So, do you believe that that's where most Americans are at, is that they also want to abolish ICE?

No, sir.

And why do you think that is?

I think that in the United States we care a lot about our laws being enforced and

Enforcement. What a novel concept. So when uh w- when uh the last administration, you've had a lot of criticisms in this hearing today about this administration. What do you think the last administration failed at? Just briefly.

I think that the last administration could have done more and more quickly to control the southern border.

In what way?

Limiting the benefits given to individuals crossing the southern border, um when it comes especially to asylum.

So, don't don't give them free stuff, right, don't open is that is that what you're saying, limiting the benefits? Don't give them free stuff that incentivizes them. Do you think that that incentivized them to come to the country?

No asylum seeker gets free stuff. I to be clear, I'm I'm talking about the benefit of asylum, an immigration benefit.

In your written testimony you wrote that a there is a smarter path uh the Trump administration can do with sanctuary jurisdictions and highlighting how some of the some jurisdictions uh may be willing to cooperate in serious cases. Uh you also wrote that focus uh uh focus immigration enforcement on serious public safety threats what do you consider a serious case or a serious public safety threat?

I I think we can look at criminal law, we can look at violations, and we can decide which of those are more concerning.

Well y- well you're the expert, so I'm just I'm asking you, what do you consider, this is in your public ter- testimony, what do you consider a serious case or a serious public safety threat?

I I think there's a lot to that answer that I would like more time than five minutes to consider.

Well, like what? Like what does it like a like a felony, would a felony be considered a serious case?

Absolutely.

So like a a DUI, would that be considered a serious case?

I think it depends on the circumstances. A DUI is an extremely serious violation.

What about in the case of Mr. Abraham's daughter, the DUI, a prior con- uh prior charge of conviction, would that be considered a serious case?

I think a DUI is a significant violation of our laws.

What about um shoplifting?

Again, it's a significant violation of our laws.

Now shoplifting is, I guess, a misdemeanor, would that be, but would you still consider shoplifting a serious case?

In my testimony, I talked about how this administration should work with local jurisdictions, to decide with them what our serious case is, where are those jurisdictions willing to lend local resources to help ICE do its job. and that those conversations would be more fruitful than this administration's approach which is instead to name and shame jurisdictions that it sees as not cooperating.

I I think the question is like what you consider a serious case. So in the case of DUI or shoplifting as in Miss Gorman, they those would be those would be considered serious cases, and I'm glad you actually do that. I'm glad you disagree with the ranking member. Miss Gorman, did you watch any of President Trump's State of the Union speech? Did you watch any of President Trump's State of the Union speech? When the president asked, I'm gonna paraphrase loosely, that uh it is the duty of public servants in Congress to protect the safety and security of American citizens. Do you remember that moment?

Yes.

What happened in that moment?

I'm sorry.

What happened in that moment?

I was moved and uh

Did anyone stand?

I was I don't know the the

Uh

the the Democrats didn't respond.

I I I don't know if your microphone's on or not. Um

They didn't respond.

They didn't respond. What did you fe- what did you what did you feel at that moment?

Think. The general

Generalist, time's expired.

Cuz she answered first. What I feel, I felt outrage. Outrage that our politicians who we choose don't choose us in return. That's how I felt. Thank you. And I feel outrage that this guy who, yeah, he might have only committed, um, a misdemeanor, but he murdered my daughter. He was on the streets to murder my daughter, a hundred percent preventable. He could have been scooped up twice. And he wasn't. He was allowed to murder my daughter.

Should have never been here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Hunt.

Sheridan Gorman. Katie Abraham. Chloe Polzin. Jocelyn Nungary. Rachel Moran. Megan Boss. Lizbeth Medina. Dakara Thompson. And many more. Say their names. Say their names. Sheridan, Katie, Chloe, Lincoln, Jocelyn, Rachel, Megan, Lizbeth, and Dakara. May you rest in peace. These are Americans. These are people's childrens, they're family member, they're friends. And every single one of the names that I just mentioned deserved a chance to pursue the American dream. Every last one of them deserved to grow up and build a future and live in a country that is safe, secure and governed simply by the rule of law. The rule of law that I fought in combat to fight for every single American. Instead, these stories end in tragedy. These tragedies were preventable. And when Democrat leaders refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, Americans bear the deadly consequences. And I'm disgusted by my colleagues that fight so hard for the rights of people, that have no business being here in the first place. This should not be a political debate. We are talking about real people, real families whose lives cannot be replaced ever again. Entering the United States illegally does not create a right to remain here indefinitely. For whatever reason, this is a political football. It's very cut and dry. This is very simple to someone like me. Let's consider this. This has already been stated. But in just ten months, New York released nearly seven thousand aliens subject to ICE detainers. We are talking about crimes that include twenty-nine murders, twenty-five hundred assaults, two hundred burglaries, three hundred robberies, and hundreds of sexual assaults. And we are allowing these criminals and these animals back into our midst. Government's first responsibility is to protect our citizens. Anything less than that is a derelict of duty and a failure of leadership. And in this case, the intentional failure of leadership done by political purposes. Our chairman was speaking earlier during his opening remarks, talking about ten million people that have entered this il- country illegally, that we know of. I've heard I've heard twenty. I don't give a damn how many it is. It's one too many. And especially people that come here and rape and maim are babies. This is what I get up and do this job every single day, cuz I have babies too, and I see these pictures that are in front of me, and I weep for you. Cuz I see my babies in these photos and they could have been one of mine as well. And if we don't do our jobs up here on Capitol Hill, we're gonna have more pictures, we're gonna have more murders, and we're gonna have more rapes. This is the bottom line. This is not a partisan issue. Miss Gorman, Mister Abraham, I wanna thank you so much for being here on our for you, my deepest cons- con- condolences. Thank you so much for being here. And ma'am, I know this has to be very difficult, but you're doing it in the name of your baby. And she's looking down on you and she is very, very proud of you for doing this. I can assure you. Sheriff, thank you very much for being here as well. Last year, sir, you did a Fox News interview in which you mentioned that under the direction of Gavin Newsom you received a threatening letter from the Attorney General of California because of your pledge to work with law enforcement. Is this true, sir?

Yes, sir, it is.

With my remaining time, sir, um, what would be your message to Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrat leaders across this country? who persist with these homicidal sanctuary policies. And Sheriff, do you think that it is normal for the Governor and Attorney General of a state to tell a member of law enforcement to not cooperate with law enforcement?

No, I do not. It puts me in a uh very hard position, but uh once again I will continue to do what I believe is right. And my message is is really clear. In California, stop championing the criminals and let's start championing the victims, sir.

Amen. We're killing each other from within. That is how this country comes to an end, not from anybody from the outside, but because we allow ten million people enter our country illegally, and then we make excuses for them after they murder our babies. That's insanity. And no other country operates like that, neither should we. I yield back to remaining my time and thank you all so much, and I offer you my deepest condolences. Thank you all.

Gentlemen, this time is expired. Mister Grothman.

Thank you. Uh, first of all, I wanna clean up some of the things that have been said here in the past. Um, when people talk about the number of crimes committed who are people in by people in this country illegally, and people claim that they are more law abiding than the native born here, the reason they can make that statement is nobody keeps track of the number of crimes who are committed by people here illegally. Right, if I walk into a Wisconsin jail and ask the sheriff how many of these people are illegal immigrants, he has no clue. We've got a federal prison in Wisconsin and I've toured the federal prison and I asked the the warden of the federal prison how many of these people here are ill are in this prison, are people who are illegally. He has no idea. So whenever you hear a politician say that people who are here illegally are committing less crimes than the native born, They don't have a clue. The second thing I wanna point out is, because they're lost in the in in the debate, is the huge number of people who come here legally every year. And they try to set those of us up who want the current law enforced as being some mean people who won't let anybody in here. Right now on a rolling average every year we have about eight hundred thousand new people sworn in as new citizens. Eight hundred thousand. If you look at that historically, it is high. When I was a child, that number was around two hundred thousand. So we are right now letting in legally a very high number. Right now in this country, one sixth of the people are foreign born. We have never had so many people in our country foreign born as we do now. That is more than even in the late eighteen hundreds when we had all the immigration from Eastern Europe and Germany and what have you. But for whatever reason, they don't talk about that. Now, if we are, if we do believe in immigration laws, we should remove the people who tried to sneak in here illegally. That to me is also obvious. And insofar, nobody knows exactly how many, insofar as President Biden let eight million people in this country illegally. If we're gonna have our laws mean anything, it means ICE and Border Patrol and whoever should remove those eight million people. I don't know any serious person who believes we should only remove people who've committed a serious crime. Right? If eight million people came here illegally, eight million people should be removed. Now, uh, we've had a a long hearing here and I um we we we're having this hearing because of the horrific acts committed by people who are in this country illegally and sometimes it's easy to forget the wonderful people whose lives were cut short by the zeal of what I think is the democrat party trying to change America as quickly as they can and letting everybody know their son here but in any event um uh we'll start with mister Abraham um do you wanna share with us a little bit of your daughter's history and what her dreams were so that whoever is listening today can see what life was cut short because of letting all these people in our country illegally.

Yeah, Katie was a special person for sure. She had this unique personality, drew everyone in, and always made people feel seen and heard. But I actually wanna ask questions, actually, Miss Pierce and then the Congresswoman who kinda stepped away scaling. The inconsistencies I'm struggling with here. So they're they're complaining about uh uh children being exploited but I didn't hear these voices from twenty one to twenty five were you were you talking about that too cause maybe I wasn't paying attention so as wonderful as Katie was and how she got sacrificed by awful policies she was sacrificed there's no question about it people knew a preventable outcome this is part of the equation and calculation ok this is hundred percent I believe but it just seems to me strike the inconsistencies that oh we're so worried about now I I don't know but you know over the last four nothing not a word from anybody I I so I'm just confused I guess

well

I don't wanna talk about it cause I don't think anyone here cares

but

so I I don't wanna waste my breath on that I just wanna know what are the why the inconsistency why does it only one side and the other I that that's what I'd like we'll talk after this I'd love to hear how you're saying now is important

ok the

but back then it wasn't important so anyway you go

the thank you and I I think it comes from their

I'm I'm afraid I'm gonna have to interrupt. We're gonna have to save that for the next question, Mr. General, because time's expired, but we'll go to Chairman Jordan.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, let me start with um Well, let me go back to Mr. Abraham. Uh, your daughter went to school in Ohio. Is that right? Did I g- I think when we talked at our in in our office a couple months ago,

Sure. Athens, Ohio, Ohio University, Bobcat, yeah.

yeah. Yeah, what was she majoring in?

She was gonna be marketing, yeah, yeah.

Marketing. We had a big journalism school there, I wondered if she was gonna be a journalist as well.

Yeah.

Um, now I know she was lovely young lady. Uh, Sheriff, you um, your state is a sanctuary state, is that right?

Correct, sir.

Yeah, so even if you wanted to enter into these two eighty-seven G agreements that Miss Pierce was kind of alluding to where you can work with the federal government in enforcing federal law relative to immigration, uh, you're not allowed to do that in your state. Is that right?

Correct, sir.

But you decided you're gonna do the right thing,

Yes.

and you're gonna work with.

Yes.

Right? And guess what? If we had passed the bill that Mr. McClintock's the sponsor of, that we've already passed out this committee, you would be protected. It says you couldn't face any kind of repercussions or consequences from your from the state if you would that law would be passed. So right now you're just doing it cuz it's the right darn thing to do. And is it really that hard? Miss Pierce said it's like tough to, you know, it's it's a cost on counties and it's basically honoring the detainer notice. And my understanding is when I've seen these notices, it's like, hey, if you're gonna release so-and-so, who we know is an illegal migrant, who was in your detention center or your jail, because he's been a it's been alleged he's committed some other crime, if you're gonna release him, just call us, give us a heads-up forty-eight hours before you release him. How is that an additional cost for the for the county or the city?

There there is no cost. In fact, that's probably the most efficient way, and they've been what what I've been hearing is the federal resources n have now been r uh reallocated and it's all because of sanctuary laws instead of going to the jails where it's extremely efficient now they have to go out into the community which is not safer so this

Jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement, jeopardizing the safety of the public,

One hundred.

and maybe, just as importantly, jeopardizing the safety of the migrant, right?

One one hundred percent, sorry.

Yeah. It's just uh that's why I used the word " dumb" I think three times in my opening statement cuz I have yet to figure out anything smart about this policy that is now, as I said, in almost a third of the nation lives in a jurisdiction where that's the policy. That's just crazy. Ms. Gorman, I know it's not easy to talk about, but um the individual who who took your daughter's life, Jose Medina, do you know when he was apprehended by Border Patrol? May ninth, twenty twenty three, during the Biden administration, when they were letting in ten million people. Mister Abraham, when was when was your the the the guy who took the life of your precious daughter, when was he apprehended?

He re-entered easily twenty twenty two using false documents and aliases.

Twenty twenty two, during the Biden administration.

Yeah.

They let in ten million people. Right? Just let them in. Okay, do you know what, do you know, Miss Gorman? You know what Mister Medina happened to say at his interview with, he was apprehended by border patrol. You know what he happened to say at his at his interview?

uh uh standard he said he was not planning on going.

Hit your microphone if you would please. Thank you.

As I understand it, he was asked the standard questions on whether he was claiming asylum and whether he felt threatened or scared to return to his co- uh country he was in Columbia at the time. And he answered negatively, no, he was not afraid, no, he was not claiming asylum, and we took him anyway. That's my understanding.

He gets asked the question, is there a credible fear of persecution or harm in your country, and his answer was no.

No.

I just wanna come to US cuz it's great, you know, best country ever. He just wanted to come here. And the agents and people who were doing the interview said he is likely to not not show he's likely to abscond, right?

No. And yet they gave him cashless bail after he committed a crime in Chicago.

Okay. It well After that crime too, I'm I'm getting to that. So he gets charged a few months later or or sometime later he gets charged with a crime. Right? Did it. They release him. They don't call.

Nope.

They don't have a two eighty seven G because Chicago and Illinois are sanctuary city, sanctuary And he gets charged with a crime, he gets released, and does he show up for his court date?

Course not.

Course not. And did local authorities ever once think of calling ICE?

No.

No, they didn't have a sheriff like the guy sitting beside you, like Sheriff Redmond. They didn't have that. And then this terrible thing happens. And that's what we're trying to change. And I don't think, uh, to me, I don't get it either, cuz it sure doesn't seem that hard to me. It seems like

Common sense.

There you set it. Common sense. And I actually think, I'm gonna get real political here, but I actually think this midterm election is really, I said this in an interview the other day. You could summarize it in two sentences. They're crazy, we're not. Right? Cuz this policy is crazy. And it is crazy versus common sense as the president said. This is the most common sense thing. Just work. Let the sheriff work with you. He wants to work with you in California. Let him do it. Not be maybe violating the law for doing the common sense thing? For goodness sake. So I want to again thank you all for coming. Um.

Would the gentleman yield?

I will I will yield the four seconds to the right-hand guy.

I want to say I agree with you.

Well, God bless you.

One side is crazy, one doesn't. The only the onl the onl the only question the only

You figured it out on your way out the door, Mister Natter, that is great to know.

question the only question is which way.

All right, I yield back. I and I I want to do this again if I could, Mister Chairman. I want to thank the chairman of this subcommittee. He is the sponsor of the bill that fixes it. He has been working on this issue and so many others that are common sense things we need to do to make it work.

I hate hate to interrupt the chairman, but his time, especially on that subject, but his time has expired. Uh, Mr. Onder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for to all the witnesses for being here today. It is utterly devastating to think of the damage that has been done in America's largest cities today. because of the embrace of sanctuary city policies. Mrs. Gorman, Mr. Abraham, I am so deeply sorry for the loss of your daughters. I commend you for your courage in being here today and bearing witness to the insanity, the almost sadistic cruelty represented by the politically and ideologically driven sanctuary policies of these jurisdictions. that one-third of Americans are forced to live in today. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Sanctuary policies create a safe haven for criminal illegal aliens. They embolden repeat offenders and they make our communities less safe. Americans all over the country are subject to senseless violence. And when state governments like Illinois refuse to honor ICE detainers, and criminal illegal aliens are released, into the public without repercussions, there are consequences. Uh, for example, even after the horrific sexual assault of a three-year-old girl by an illegal alien whose ice detainer was ignored by the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago PD's only response was, quote, they remain committed to protecting all Chicago residents, regardless of their immigration status. Tell me that the governing class in Chicago cares about Americans. They're putting illegal aliens first and American citizens last. You know, in Missouri in two thousand eight, we had the foresight to ban sanctuary cities. Actually, we passed a piece of legislation called House Bill fifteen forty nine. It was my bill, was at the time probably the strongest state law in the country to fight illegal immigration and uh we banned sanctuary cities and you know, we li- we have a lot of crazy left Democrat politicians in Saint Louis, Columbia, Kansas City, Springfield and Missouri. But we don't have any sanctuary cities because of our our foresight to get ahead of this. Uh, back when folks said, you know, said, um, you know, you're just being an alarmist, you're you know, you're racist, you're you're you're you're you're xenophobic. But a but actually, I'm happy to say quite a few of my Democrat colleagues back then joined me in supporting that bill because it just represented common sense. we cannot treat our immigration laws with the kind of contempt that we're seeing out of sanctuary jurisdictions in this country today. Um, just wanted to ask you, Mrs. Gorman, um, i- if you if you had an opinion on this, what what what what policy changes do you hope to see so that other families aren't subjected to the pain and the just the misery that you have been?

I really am not um educated on the specific policies. Um I've been reading a lot about them. O- obviously the sanctuary policy policies that they have with ca- and combined with cashless bail um combined with uh failure to follow actual federal law, that's already in place,

Right.

I don't know that there really needs to be much that's changed.

Yeah.

As long as you follow the federal law then

Yeah, you're not a lawyer, you're not a criminologist, you're not a

If they had followed the federal law, my daughter would be sitting next to me right now,

Yeah.

and I'd be on a beach somewhere, not sitting here.

You know, and if any of my Democrat colleagues have troubles with that law, there's a place you can go, it's called a legislature, specifically Congress, where you can change laws that have been on the books since at least nineteen sixty-five. You can change those laws. But no, instead, we're going to take it upon ourselves in our sanctuary just to be like John C. Calhoun, we're just gonna nullify federal law. We're just not gonna cooperate with law enforcement. Uh, Mr. Abraham, what are your thoughts?

So, yeah, I agree. Number one, you can't nullify federal law and then have no process to fill the vacuum.

Yeah. Yes.

You want ten million illegals apparently, or whatever it is, or just ten million immigrants, do it the proper way, do it the way my parents did.

Yeah.

Right? I learned on their knee. Right?

Yes.

But what happened in the prior administration, that crazy unprecedented recklessness, and now you're objecting to correcting some of the past

Absolutely right.

is is is just so dishonest.

Absolutely right.

I'm not even sure what to say with that.

You know, I do want to end echo the sentiments of of of uh my colleague, uh Representative Grothman. The United States of America has nothing to apologize for regarding our immigration policies. We let millions of le- of legal foreigners into our country, we give some of them green cards, we naturalize some of them, who do it legally. It is not fair for all those around the world who are waiting to d- to do it the right way, that some get to jump the line and some of those are criminals who victimize our families.

But, but our job, But our job, our job is your jobs are not to ins- incentivize, entice, and bring people like you saw at that southern was that compassionate was that was that compassion I saw those

of course

but that wasn't compassion and it's not your it's not our job to do that

of course it wasn't

uh ranking member wants to know if my the generally times expired but

thank thank you

create a good environment a good country people want

start to clock for for my time mister abram go ahead finish finish answering

thank you I yield back

your question on my time

uh uh I would just say that um the the job and the role of this country is not to entice and go out and pull in right create the best country you can people will come, you have a process. They say about, well, citizens create more crime than illegal immigrant. Even if this is true,

It's not.

as human human nature, then you ought to assume a similar type of percentage will create havoc here.

No, it and

So filter them out.

and Mister Abram, by the way, that's not true.

I agree, it's not true.

Um, we, uh,

I'm just saying, I'm just saying, for the

we have heard, we have had a lot of testimony to to to that extent,

It's it's, I agree, it's distorted.

that the

They're not allowed to know that information.

I think the legal

population commits crimes at a higher rate than the general population. We see that in the scaife numbers, for example. One way they hide these numbers, uh, is by simply refusing to report illegal alien, uh, uh, crimes.

Exactly.

But, uh, I I do need to

Illinois doesn't need you. Illinois will never figure out.

I I do need to, uh, set the record straight on on claims we heard from Miss Pierce and and Miss Scanlon. The fact is of the aliens arrested by ICE during President Trump's uh first year of the second term, Seventy percent had a conviction or pending criminal charges. That doesn't include the number of aliens who have criminal histories in their home countries but not in the US, or or aliens without criminal histories but who are gang members or terrorists. That's one of the games they play. And I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article entitled "Seven in ten ICE arrests under Trump have criminal histories", uh from the Washington Examiner, uh December twenty sixth, twenty twenty five. uh without objection. Um Sheriff Redman, we hear several arguments from the Democrats uh in in defense of so-called sanctuary laws first one you've you've already addressed, question of resources but let me ask you another question in that respect. What's more taxing to local law enforcement, turning an illegal alien over to ICE while they're in your custody? Or having ICE have to send squads into the community to arrest that same alien because you're forbidden under sanctuary laws from reporting that alien to ICE?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So obviously sending in ice into my community poses some significant issues and problems when we're not allowed to cooperate and be there. There's interoperability issues, the fact that we know our community, we know the players, we know the neighborhood, and if something goes down then we're not involved, that is not safe for my community.

But

The locals should be involved.

but but i- i- without those sanctuary laws, you could turn that individual who's already safely in custody over to ICE without without any of those problems, correct?

Correct. Correct, absolutely, with with those low level offenses.

And and and yet the d- and yet the Democrats keep telling us uh about uh the terrible consequences of having to send ICE uh squads to arrest illegal aliens who could have been turned over while in custody but under their laws uh uh uh law enforcement was forbidden from from doing so uh another uh argument we hear is that that honoring ICE detainers would discourage illegal aliens from reporting crimes what's your response?

My response is I met with our local uh um migrants in in my community. We we are a rural county with a huge winery. They had a litany of questions for me. I sat down and talked to their representative and after uh our conversation, they they want to feel safe. They wanna be safe.

Well, in in in fact, in fact

They do trust law enforcement. They do not want criminals because these migrants,

In fact,

in fact, these

they're they're they're the first victims uh of these criminal illegal

Correct. Correct.

aliens that are the Democrats are requiring be allowed back into our communities. of uh is that not the case

correct the the illegals will prey on their their own people because they know that they don't want to say anything

uh and another one is that well a federal judicial warrant should be required but how do you obtain a federal judicial warrant for a state crime or for a civil deportation

you can't

yeah well we've had testimony on that from other uh witnesses as well you can't that's another one of the games they play they know that they use that as an excuse not to enforce the the law A Sheridan's murderer was in custody for shoplifting under SB fifty four, California sanctuary law. Uh uh is that considered a low level crime that forbids you from honoring an ice detainer shoplifting?

Yes. Yes, sir.

Uh what other crimes are you required by law to keep secret from the public and from ice? Uh burglary?

Yes.

DUI?

Yes.

Welfare fraud?

Yes.

Yet Miss Pierce tells us these are not serious crimes. another one of the games that they play. Um uh j- j- could you uh just uh walk us through very quickly how you would honor an ICE detainer uh if you had the legal authority from the state of California to do so uh you'd get a request from ICE to notify them when an illegal alien is about to be released from custody is that correct you get a written legal

That's correct.

detainer request what would you do in response to that request?

Correct. So if we were a able to contact ICE, we would immediately notify them and let them know this person's

You pick up the phone and call them and say, we're about to release this this individual unless you wanna come pick him up?

Yes.

Um, does that represent a serious drain on county resources?

Not at all. We do it all the time.

Is that worth the life

My daughter?

of Sheridan Gorman? Or so many of the other angel families that we have here, or uh uh uh Katie Abraham?

One hundred percent.

That's what they're saying, is it's not worth a phone call. Well, my time's expired. And that concludes today's hearing, I believe. Yes.

Mm-hmm.

Um, I wanna thank our witnesses, uh, for appearing before the subcommittee today. Uh, without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, or additional materials for the record. And with that, and without objection, the hearing is adjourned.