Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  September 28, 2016 9:00am-10:01am EDT

9:00 am
the police department, every policy is reviewed by the department of justice federal monitor, who is appointed by a federal judge. policy, we asked asked -- experts. officials from ice were brought in. the major city chiefs association represents 70 million for instance, the major city's chief association, which new orleans is a member, represents 70 million americans. they support policies that foster trust, cooperation, between police officers and immigrant communities we all serve. my third point is that nopd's policy on immigration status which make the city safer. it frees up our officers to focus on violent crime and
9:01 am
allows anyone to report a crime or to be a witness or a victim to report a crime. the policy is already bearing fruit. on the ground, our staff is seeing better cooperation with immigrant communities. back to 2010, we did invite the justice department in. their comprehensive investigation showed that we had problems in the way we treated the immigrant community. we wanted to fix that. since 2010, we have launched 11 new recruit classes, written 34 more of these policies, more are being drafted, covering canine use, prisoner transport, taser operation, body-worn cameras to name a few. now, going back to march, 2015, we started drafting this policy with the nopd, the federal monitor ands justice department. in september, we brought in i.c.e. we asked the experts.
9:02 am
they were brought in at both the local and headquarters level. at the time, they told us the policy complied with all federal i.c.e. requirements for law enforcement. then, in december, judge suzy mortgasuzy more began also brought in i.c.e. no concerns, substantive concerns about the policy were raised at that time. in february of this year, the federal monitor approved the policy. immediately, there were some concerns about the policy. so mayor landrieu wrote to d.a.s. and d.o.j., the leadership there and said, if anyone in any of your agencies has a concern about this policy, please contact us. it wasn't until july, we received aler back with information about 1373 and general compliance there. so when we got that -- when we received that information, we immediately went to work, redrafting the policy with d.o.j. and as the chairman noted
9:03 am
last week, the federal monitor did approve the updated policy with, what we believe fully complies with federal law just as we believe the last policy did. the n.o.p.d.'s policy on immigration status is going to make the city safer and follows federal law. as required, we will review our policies continuously. i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. butter worth, the chair would now recognize the gentleman from virginia for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. butter worth, let me pick up where you left off. i appreciate the work you have done. under the revised policy, the new orleans police officers are prohibited from making inquiries about an individual's immigration status, including to i.c.e. section 1373-b authorizes them to make requests for i.c.e. for such information. doesn't it spril late section
9:04 am
1373-b. >> we believe it fully complies with 1373. if there is anything about the new policy that is unclear, we would be happy to go back and take a look. >> why was there specific reference made to 1373-a and 1373-b was left out of it. >> i think the focus of concerns raised have been on 1373-a. we are happy to go back and make sure there is no understanding about 1373-b. >> are you aware of any concerns on the part of the mayor or city officials or the police department chief or others about authorizing officers to make inquiries about an individual's immigration status? >> as you just heard miss gupta testify, this policy allows officers to communicate with i.c.e. they are going to help i.c.e. in any sort of public safety event, help them execute criminal warrants. there is no restriction on the
9:05 am
communication between an officer and i.c.e. >> is there any restriction on a police officer making a request to i.c.e. for information regarding an individual's immigration status? >> there is no -- the way the policy is laid out, if an officer interacts with a member of the public, he or she immediately run that person's name against the ncic database system. if there is a concern, there is a criminal warrant, the person is immediately arrested. >> now, noted in your testimony that the new orleans police department takes criminals off the street. if you find that they are not lawfully present in the united states, what happens after they have been through the judicial process in new orleans. >> so, thank you for allowing me to clarify that. new orleans has a very unique political structure. the mayor is elected parish-wide to lead the n.o.p.d. our sheriff is also elected
9:06 am
parish-wide and he represents the sheriff's department. i don't represent the sheriffs department. our officers that arrest someone on a criminal warrant deliver the suspect -- >> assuming that they are prosecuted and convicted and inca incarcerated, not all will be but those who are, after they have served their time, what does the policy of the new orleans police department and court say about communications with ice about the fact that someone is about to be released from jail or released from prison who has been convicted of a crime and not lawfully present in the united states. >> if a person is convicted, they are likely sent to angola, a state correction facility. i would defer to them. >> what about the jail sns. >> the sheriff of new orleans operates the jail there.
9:07 am
we have no operational control over the sheriff. >> let me turn to the attorney general. welcome. we are back to have you back with us, attorney general landry. i want to start by asking you if you believe na that as louisian chief new orleans officer that the consent decree violated federal law? >> pursuant to the changes, it absolutely did. whether in practice the new changes will remedy that situation. what we have is two types of sanctuary city policies. it is either don't ask or don't tell. the prior policy prior to the change was both, both a don't ask and don't tell. now, the question is whether or not. they seem to have remedied the don't tell but it doesn't seem
9:08 am
they have made any changes in the don't ask portion. >> it is your intention to make sure everything within your power to assure that happens will happen so that they are in full compliance with 1373, not just one subsection. >> absolutely. we are going to try to take it upon ourselves and let all law enforcement officers around the state know exactly what 1373 states and how they can avoid violating that statute. >> thank you. just in general, do you believe it is inconsistent for a jurisdiction to adopt a sanctuary policy that violates federal law and at the same time requests federal law enforcement grant money? >> i do. >> what message does that send concerning the rule of law? >> again, it sends a terrible one. i think that's part of the demise of our criminal justice system and the reason we have an uptick in crime across the country when we allow people to flagrantly violate any law and turn a blind eye to it. all that does is lead to those
9:09 am
people committing additional crimes and thinking it is okay to break the law. >> thank you very much. i heard your testimony that with the correction of this, hopefully it will soon be completely corrected, there will be no communities in the state of louisiana that would be characterized as sanctuary cities. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i wish other states had the same effort to have such a consistent record. i yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman from virginia yields back. the chair will recognize the gentlelady from california. in e civil rights division, it was involved in investigating >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand in 2005, the civil rights was involved in investigating new orleans policy abuse and misconduct in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. t investigation? can you talk briefly about the acts of abuse your division
9:10 am
uncovered as a result? >> we launched our investigation into the new orleans police department in 2010 and uncovered very pervasive widespread acts of misconduct related to specifically excessive use of force, stop searches and arrests, discriminatory policing and the like. one of the goals we had when we came in at the invitation of mayor landrieu was to ensure the new orleans police department would be able to carry out its core function of providing effective and constitutional policing to keep all residents of new orleans safe. in our 141 page findings report, we detailed after extensive data, interviews with a lot of engagement with nopd officers, command staff as well as community workers, these had thoroughly undermined the n.o.p.d.'s ability to solve
9:11 am
crime. in a year since, since we have enacted this, we have been working collaboratively with the city and the brave men and women of the new orleans police department to address these and finally give them the tools that they need to have the trust with their residents and to be able to fight violent crime. >> thank you. judiciary committee, not a we are pleased to be joined by a member of the full judiciary committee who is not a member of the subcommittee. that's mr. richmond. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to him so he might ask a question since this is his territory. >> the georgia from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and for the ranking member for allowing me to ask some questions. let me start with a ce things here. let me just start with a couple of things here. in the opening testimony of our
9:12 am
chairman, he said that he believed that the consent decree between the city of new orleans and the department of justice was done through collusion. as an african-american male who grew up in new orleans, who had to deal with the new orleans police department, the police department went under consent decree because of use of force, failing to invest gait, stop and search without cause, discrimination against african-americans, failing to investigate sex crimes against females and domestic violence, a paid detailed system that invited corruption, failing to sufficiently embrace community policing and immigration as one of them. i just would like to clear up for anyone who thinks that colluded all of that. it is very convenient for a white male from virginia to talk about collusion in a consent decree. attorney general landry, let me
9:13 am
just applaud you for working on sanctuary cities, because you believe it is important. i would ask, can you help our chairman, goodlatte, because he has two sanctuary cities in virginia? if you are going to start cleaning up, start cleaning up at home. while we go down the list, we have four in south carolina p every parish in colorado, we have sioux city and representative kings district and rockwell, and travis in texas. if we are going to start talking about sanctuary cities, don't just pick mine that you would like to allege as a sanctuary city. let's talk about all of them, specially the people who are on the committee. the other thing we talked about was the unfortunate death of a fire chief, a very respected and loved fire chief in st. john
9:14 am
parish. i think that incident happened. the person fell through the cracks. that's what we should stop. that has absolutely nothing to do with new orleans. the guy didn't live in new orleans. he was never arrested in new orleans. the company that he worked for was not in new orleans. that has absolutely no connection to the city of new orleans. the company was operated out of saint tam any parrish with an elected official as a co-owner, which i think is deplorable. that we should be looking at prosecution for for the owners of the company. to single out new orleans as a city that decided they wouldn't enforce the laos. mr. butterworth, let me ask you a question. when did you all initiate trying
9:15 am
to make sure that the city's policy was consistent with federal law? >> we began the drafting of this policy in march of 2015. we began discussions with i.c.e. in september. those have continued on both the local and headquarters level. at no point did anybody at i.c.e. say this policy didn't comply with federal law. >> miss gupta, at what point is it your officers opinion that they did not comply with federal law? >> the justice department says the policy in february complied with federal law. revisions we just put into effect were made out of an abundance of caution after we received inquiries from officials in louisiana as well as we reviewed our inspector general's memo. in an abundance of caution to ensure total clarity about the fact that the policy must comply
9:16 am
with 1373. we literally lifted the language of the statute, put it into the policy to make it very clear that they can share information with i.c.e. regarding an immigration status and assist in operations with regard to direct threats to public safety. they can assist in executing a criminal warrant and the enforcement of court order. the revision was made to ensure total clarity with compliance of federal law. >> so in summary the old policy and the new policy, it's your opinion both work consistent with federal law? >> yes. >> mr. harwoods, do you have an opinion on that? >> we ultimately, congressman, didn't reach a final determination as to the legality or not of the issue, primarily because of the fact that we needed to get the report back to
9:17 am
the department and its request expeditiously. to do that, we would need to be on the ground and talk with folks on the ground from the city and from i.c.e. we haven't taken those steps. i'm not in a position to give a legal determination, without making full nefrt that regard. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from idaho. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sanctuary city policies have transformed some of our greatest american cities. i am increasingly frustrated by these policies that are consistently implemented in the name of, quote, unbiased and community based, closed quote policing. the ramifications for public safety and the inability for ice to complete its mission are severe and not only affect the
9:18 am
cities but the surrounding communities are impacted. while some of the witnesses would like to ignore this fact, imdpra immigration enforcement is a critical form of the united states that must be supported and not undermined. >> it centers around the practical application of a-1373 and whether a city can simultaneously comply with this section of law. mr. horowitz, based on your findings, what do you believe that 8 usc 1373 requires of local jurisdictions? >> in sections 1373-a and 1373-b, i'll combine them for purposes of mentioning this. it essentially prohibits state, local, or federal law from prohibiting or restricting in
9:19 am
any way employees of those entities from sending to, requesting from, or receiving from i.c.e. information about the immigration status of an individual. >> so what do you make of the fact that mr. butterworth keeps saying it complies but nothing in their guidance says that they have the ability to request information? >> the new policy we also received on friday afternoon and have looked at doesn't reference the word requesting, which is in b-1 of 1373. >> it clearly doesn't fully comply. it seems to comply with "a" but not with "b." >> it clearly addresses "a." it doesn't include the word requesting in "b."
9:20 am
i can't give a legal opinion whether it does or doesn't. >> the word "request" is not in the policy, correct? >> that's correct. >> you believe that we may need to clarify this section, correct? >> i think it is an open question. i got it friday afternoon as well. i'd have to do follow-up at the absence of the word requesting which is in 1373-b. it is obviously a reasonable question here. >> attorney general landry, great to have you here. thank you so much for the work that you are doing. >> do you believe that by implementing these sanctuary policies, new orleans and nopd are promoting public safety? >> implementing the policies of sanctuary cities? >> yes. >> absolutely not. it is a danger to public safety. most of these cities are very large cities. you have very large metropolitan footprint. what happens is it draws, it creates a magnet, a draw for
9:21 am
illegal aly illegal aliens as a sanctuary area for them to operate. it also creates an opportunity if you are a member of the drug cartel in mexico, where would you send those people who are plying your illegal trade? you would send them into those cities. the ability for those members to be identified is reduced, because of the sanctuary city policies. >> is new orleans a safer city today than before implementing these sanctuary policies? >> certainly, the substantive changes that they made on friday is a step in the right direction. i think that going ahead and clarifying it and then actually determining whether or not there will be a collaborative effort to crack down on illegal immigration, specially those in custody, that n.o.p.d. has arrested, and identifies them is yet to be seen. >> so as a law enforcement official, someone who has served at both the federal and state level, what do you believe is the appropriate relationship
9:22 am
between local or state law ennorsement and federal immigration enforcement? >> i believe they have to have extreme collaboration. i believe that based upon some of the u.s. supreme court p that congress needs to clarify ekts ali how law enforcement agents may engage in those types of questioning. of course, implementing 1373 is certainly a step in the right direction, making sure that law enforcement agents know that they can ask and they can communicate with i.c.e. in order to get those violent criminals off the street and deportable. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the chairman from idaho yields back and recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. >> thank you. today about gun violence. 500 people shot dead in chicago i would like to note we are not having a hearing about gun violence, 500 shot dead in chicago, 3,000 this year. we are not having a hearing about police killing unarmed
9:23 am
civilians. we are not having a hearing about the need for immigration reform and detention centers. we are not having a hearing about an important thing. we are having a hearing about a donald trump talking point, the one he goes to again, the one that says that immigrants are killers, rapists, drug dealers, who are here to hurt people, not to build up our country, like every other immigrant group that's come before them. today, you are focusing on one of america's great cities, a city with a troubling past when it comes to respecting civil rights and building trust between the police and the community at-large. so i would think that we would want to work on building that trust between the police and the people. the efforts taken by people to build that trust shouldn't be undermined. lastly, i'm just going to say, because it doesn't really matter at this hearing. it really doesn't. it is going to come and go.
9:24 am
you guys -- somebody paid for your trips to come down here. it doesn't have an impact. we are not going to change anything. this is just another political hearing. i just want to say that we could have actually spoken to a lot of very important issues that people wanted us to talk about. it always seems the majority always says we should listen to people that are not in washington, d.c. we should listen to local elected officials, that that's where democracy is blooming but it seems like every time you guys say anything, they have an objection when they don't like it. so having said that, i just want to say to my colleague, from new orleans, i would like to yield the remaining three minutes of my time to mr. richmond to ask questions. >> thank you. attorney general landry, you said that new orleans policy would imply undocumented
9:25 am
immigrants because of its status as a sanctuary city. new orleans foreign born population is about 6%. neighboring jefferson parish, which is not a sanctuary city is about 11%. how do we recognize that with the notion that new orleans is becoming a safe haven for undocumented people. >> let me clarify that. there was a misunderstanding, congressman richmond. the metropolitan area as a whole invites illegal immigrants into that particular area. they feel the need and ability to travel freely. again, when you look at not only the actual city that implements the policies, it affects the surrounding areas. just last weekend in lafayette, metropolitan area. we had an elderly man get hit head-on by an illegal immigrant who, again, had been arrested multiple times and yet was not deportable. here, we have another family losing another loved one in an
9:26 am
area which had previously had a sanctuary city policy. >> look, we have a great working relationship. i know you are very tough on crime. let me ask about the incident that killed our fire chief. it was owned bring a state rep from arkansas. due have the ability to indict the owners of the company for hiring an undocumented without a license that was driving when he caused that fatal accident? >> in louisiana, i believe the employment of an illegal is not a criminal offense. it is a civil matter. >> if it is done in a very negligent manner and without gross negligence, i think we do have some criminal statutes under which. if we can find some criminal statutes under which to charge
9:27 am
the owners of the company who ultimately are at fault for hiring an undocumented, would you commit to charging them if the facts fit the statute? i don't mind looking myself. >> absolutely. congressman, you are right, we have a great working relationship. i certainly respect you. yes, i intend to uphold the rule of law regardless. i would also mention that the sanctuary city legislation that we put forth in the state house just this year passed the state house with large bipartisan support. i think everyone is recognizing that this is a public safety debacle. this is the first step in ensuring that our communities are safe. >> thank you. i'll yield back. >> the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. i would turn first to attorney general landry and i would like
9:28 am
to pose a broader concept here and then ask you to comment on that. perhaps we will go a little deeper. as i read federal law and immigration law and as i understand it after these years on this committee, it envisions in its entirety essentially vacuuming up the illegal people in the united states and all those encountered by law enforcement. it anticipates their removal from the united states and it requires that when at least federal law enforcement officers encounter someone who is unlawfully present in america, that they shall place them in removal proceedings. would you agree so far with my characterization of federal law? >> i do. i agree with that. >> so when i look at this statute, 1373, and i read through the details of 1373, shouldn't it be clear to anyone who intends to comply with the
9:29 am
intent of federal law, that they are to help facilitate rather than frustrate the intent of federal law? >> i agree. just placing the type of language that's been put in a consent decree, dealing with immigration frustrates the law. >> i happen to have a little quote here from mr. richmond in a markup march 18th, 2015, which is about the time of the inception of this situation. he is concerned about the police department, the sheriff's office, who have a federal consent decree and that they are complying with this. this is a quote. they are complying with the federal consent decree. now, it will cause the city of new orleans to lose valuable federal money in terms of dhs and fema funds, closed quote. i think it has been known there is a clear violation here of at least the intent of the consent decree, the intent of 1373 by the consent decree and the underlying policy, which is a
9:30 am
sanctuary city policy by my reading of it. have you had any discussions or have you examined the legal language of this in such a way that you are aware of any loopholes that are being exploited in this process. it seems to be a collaboration between d.o.j. and the city of new orleans. >> it is concerning that the department of justice would go in and basically insert this language in a consent decree that had nothing to do with immigration or illegal immigration policies or enforcement by local law enforcement in the city. that language frustrates the entire consent decree. >> would fire chief spencer be alive today if we would have enforced our immigration laws as intended by this congress? >> absolutely. you could make an argument that everybody who has been a victim or lost a loved one to someone who has been in this country illegally has lost that loved
9:31 am
one simply because we failed to enforce existing law? >> would you disagree with a statement made by donald trump several weeks ago that there are thousands of americans that are grieving today because of the loss of a family member, a loved one due to the failure to enforce immigration law in the united states? >> i agree with that. >> i would say also reinforce that it is thousands. we have had difficulty in getting apples to apples in two studies. thank you, attorney general landry. i have turned to our inspector general, horowitz and ask you this for clarification as i listen and read through your testimony. it doesn't come real clear to me as to your position on whether you believe that the sanctuary policy of new orleans violates 1373? >> we looked at the policy that pre-existed friday and found
9:32 am
they had a savings clause in their provision. meaning that employees could comply if required to do so by federal or state law. our concern was, how was that being interpreted and used? section 1373 doesn't require anything. it simply prohibits or prevents state and local jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions from preventing employees or contacting to isis? >> did the policy prevent them from gathering or inquiring as to immigration status? >> parts of the policy. other parts of the policy did address that. >> that seems to be the loophole that we have identified over some years here that's exploited by the local jurisdictions. as my clock ticks down, i would like to ask miss gupta, as you spoke about this, is there any federal law or statute that you are aware of that prohibits law enforcement from profiling when they exercise their job?
9:33 am
>> congressman, let me make one thing clear if i could. there is nothing in the nopd policy that prevents officers from requesting -- >> my question is, are you aware of any law or statute that prohibits profiling in the enforcement of law? >> yes. there are the constitution, obviously, prevents racial profiling in the exercise. >> you mean to say if there happens to be at white-haired, light skinned, blue-eyed person that has committed a crime and you are on the hunt for them, you can't say that? >> there is a direct and articulated reason, reasonable suspicion, probable cause -- >> can you characterize the appearance of a suspect in the enforcement of the law? >> the gentlemen is out of time but you may answer. >> sure. >> it is against the law to engage in discriminatory policing. >> i would ask unanimous consent to press this witness until she answers my question. she is evasive in her responses.
9:34 am
>> objection. the witness has been asked and she has answered. >> she has not answered it. >> she has answered. >> i would ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. >> if the gentlelady from texas will yield. >> i will be happy to yield. >> it is hard for me to interrupt you and do so. >> does the witness feel like she has answered the question as adequately as she is able to do so? >> i do. i am happy to finish the sentence or to yield. >> no. you are welcome to finish the sentence. >> it is illegal and against the law to engage in discriminatory policing to make policing decisions solely on the basis of one's race or other kind of protected characteristic? >> if the gentleman from iowa has additional questions, we can entertain a second round. >> i thank the chairman. i don't believe i did get an answer to my specific question. i think it is obvious to the members of the panel and i would yield back. >> the gentleman from iowa yields back.
9:35 am
the chairman will now recognize the gentlelady from texas. >> i thank the chairman very much. i do want to express my appreciation when any witness comes to share with this lawmaking body. we should be problem solvers. let me thank all of you. i might say na i would join with the comments of my colleagues that are here on this side of the aisle, particularly my colleague from new orleans for his pointed and very responsive questioning. but we should be doing criminal justice reform that i hope that we will do. we should be doing p immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform. there is a point to the fact that there are cities around the nation that may need, as you said, mr. horowitz, the clarification that your pointed inspector general's report has offered us.
9:36 am
i any that'sthink that's a solu. thank you, miss gupta. i don't know where we would be if we did not have the civil rights division. have you made any pronouncement that new orleans or any city in the state of louisiana at this time is not eligible for federal grants? >> we have not. >> you have made no public statement. let me read very quickly into the record the genesis of the civil rights division coming to new orleans. this was a question by mayor mitch landrieu, a request from the u.s. department of justice to conduct an investigation. his quote is that nothing short of complete transformation is necessary and essential to ensure safety for the citizens of new orleans. i believe that you are interested in the overall security and safety of all citizens or all individuals in new orleans. that was the request made by the mayor. is that my understanding? >> that's right. >> and the representative of the mayor. is that my understanding? >> that's correct. >> and i understand you were looking at the use of excessive
9:37 am
force, unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests, biassed policing, including racial and ethnic profiling and systemic failure to provide effective policing searches and systemic failure to investigate sexual assault and domestic violence. >> that's correct. >> you were overall dealing with the civil rights of that community. the inspector general offered three points that would help in section 373. the clarification, i believe, the requiring applicants to provide certification about their interaction with i.c.e. and ensuring grant recipients clearly communicate to their personnel about 1373. do you have any opposition to that? >> no. >> would you be in compliance or intend to give some guidance to that section? >> the reason we made the revisions was to clarify very
9:38 am
clearly the policy complies with 1373. that they can share information regarding an immigration status with i.c.e., there is nothing that prevents officers were requesting immigration status from i.c.e. as well. >> i want to be very clear that there is no ban right now that you have offered and you are not trying to block. can you tell me the sentiment expressed by the chief managers and policy of the chief es association, in particular, people like tom manger, that policies like the one in new orleans will enhance public safety. is that something you have heard from other law enforcement agencies? >> thank you for the question, congresswoman. we have heard this from a number of leading law enforcement leaders. very importantly. the reason why this policy was undertaken was to help the nopd
9:39 am
fight violent crime. in the course of conducting our investigation in new orleans, we heard from any number of victims and witnesses who were afraid or refusing to cooperate with the nopd who had critical, vital information about crime and it was undermining the nopd's ability to solve and prevent violent crime in those communities. >> i am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from new orleans. >> the gentleman from new orleans is recognized for 36 seconds. >> let me quickly put the great quote i made in context. it had nothing to do with immigration that representative king talked about. that quote was because new orleans was under a federal consent decree, both the police department and the sheriff's department. it was costing over 50 milli$50 a year, which was preventing us from making the jail or the police department constitutional. since representative king brought it up, let me ask you very quickly, jeff, attorney
9:40 am
general landry. can you please coordinate with attorney general from iowa to help them with their 23 sanctuary counties that they have in iowa and maybe you can coordinate. are you willing to coordinate with representative king to help him with his 23? >> i would be glad to put on a workshop in all 49 of the states. >> with that, i yield back. >> i have a submission. i would ask unanimous consent if i might put into the record following documents, a statement from 11 national civil and immigrant rights organization, statement from the national immigration project of the national lawyers guild, statement from the national immigration reform, church world services, 20 law professors led by christopher latch, statement from 17 new orleans based community organizations and statement from the law enforcement task force. ask unanimous consent to submit
9:41 am
these documents into the record. >> i thank the witnesses and you, mr. chairman. >> i well recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. landry, have you ever prosecuted a case? >> sir? >> have you ever prosecuted a case? >> a criminal case, not while being an attorney general. >> does your office prosecute case sns. >> we do. >> mr. horowitz, have you ever prosecuted a case? >> i have. >> miss gupta, have you ever prosecuted a case? >> my firm does, yes. >> mr. horowitz, when you prosecuted horks was your client? >> people of the united states fwhchlt skr miss gupta, when you prosecuted, who was your compliant? >> the people of the united states. >> in your opening, miss gupta, you say police officers, the top of page 4 in your written submission. police officers cannot solve crimes nor help victims prosecute criminals or help
9:42 am
federal law enforcement deport violent criminals if witnesses feel afraid to share information. >> mr. landry, why would a victim feel unsafe to share information? >> only because they would be afraid of the suspect. >> how about if they are in this country illegally and they share information and they are asked about their status in this country, would they feel afraid to share their status, because they could be deported or held if they were in the country illegally when they reported the case? >> if a person is victimized, it would report it regardless of that. we have seen as a former law enforcement officer, i have seen many communities, specially, when you get into the poorer communities, that they are a suspect of law enforcement all together regardless of their immigration status. >> mr. horowitz, can someone feel afraid to report a crime, because they are, in fact, committing a crime themselves. >> it has been a while since i
9:43 am
prosecuted a case. you can certainly see that being a concern. >> it has been a while since i prosecuted the case also. let's dig deep into the recesses of our memory. mr. horowitz, is it an allowable part of cross-examination to ask a victim or witness a question that would determine their motive for testifying or recording a crime? >> it is. obviously, it depends on the junl's ruling as to the scope of it. >> your interpretation of the law, the rules of evidence in a broad sense, that would ab loud, to question about motive. how about veracity? >> that would also be allowed to the extent and scope the judge allowed it. >> if somebody were to report a crime and yet they had committed the crime or they had a motive, for example, a "u" visa. it allows a prosecutor to apply
9:44 am
to immigration authorities to allow someone to stay in this country if they are a victim or a witness of a crime. it would be fair to inquire then of that person whether they had committed a crime themselves by being in the country illegally in order to get a full picture about the prosser cue torey merits of a case, would it not? >> presumably. i think it would be depending upon the facts and circumstances, up to the judge ultimately. >> mr. landry, let me ask you something. when the dwepartment of justice the civil rights division, decides they are going to protect one group of individuals who are committing crimes in this country and make sure that we are not prosecuting another group of individuals, are they, in fact, choosing which type of criminal they want prosecuted in louisiana and new orleans? >> that's correct. that's ekxactly. we are choosing between what laws we will follow and what
9:45 am
laws we will allow to be broken. >> why would someone do that politically? >> you would have to ask them. i wouldn't engage in that type of activity. >> no, you wouldn't, because it is unethical, isn't it? >> that's correct. >> if you believe that you are, in fact, not enforcing the laws or if you enter into a consent decree and you are not representing your client, the people of the united states, the people who are being victimized, that would be unethical conduct, would it not? >> it would be. >> mr. horowitz, do you agree with that? >> depending on the facts and circumstances, yes. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado yields back. the chair will now yield to the gentleman of texas, former u.s. attorney, mr. ratcliff. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i have to confess that i'm more than just a little bit embarrassed that the american people have to see a congressional hearing dealing
9:46 am
with the obsurdity of the subject matter we are dealing with today. right now, mr. chairman, at schools across america, we are hopefully teaching our kids about the constitution. with all due respect to my colleagues across the aisle who keep saying that we're hypocritical for asserting that the federal government has a role here, i hope we are doing a better job of teaching our kids about the constitution than we apparently did in teaching some of our colleagues. the very first sentence of the constitution, in the preample is where kids learn that the primary role, the primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense and the single most important part of that is ensuring the sovereignty and integrity of our territorial borders. mr. chairman, that's the reason that we have a federal government. that's the one thing that the federal government is supposed to do. that's the business that the federal government is supposed to be in.
9:47 am
it is not supposed to be mandating health care decisions for americans. it is not supposed to be in interfering with teachers and parents in decisions about kids education. we have a federal government to protect americans against people from outside our borders who might cause us harm. to protect americans like kate steinle in san francisco and spencer shauvan and jermaine star in louisiana and peter hacking and grayson hacking and elly bryant in my district in northeast texas, all of whom were killed by illegal aliens who violated the sovereignty and integrity of our territorial borders to come to this country and tragically, these are just five of the countless victims killed by illegal aliens every year. mr. chairman, if that's the primary role of our federal government, if that's why we have a federal government, are we really having a hearing about
9:48 am
the fact that instead of enforcing our federal immigration laws, the federal government is doing the exact opposite and as general landry testified is actually coercing cities into not complying with federal immigration laws? then, to add insult to injury, the american people tuning in to this hearing today, see that the very department of justice that is tying hands of law enforcement in places like new orleans, turns around and rewards sanctuary cities by handing out federal funds. even though the conditions for those federal funds is that the recipients abide by federal law. did i hear correctly that two-thirds of all federal money going to law enforcement is going to ten jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration laws and mash bohar
9:49 am
most violent criminal aliens and refuse to cooperate to deport them? that's as shocking as it is shameful. general landry, you obviously share my frustration. it is why you wrote to attorney general loretta lynch and asked her whether the department of justice at the same time as they were enthusiastically approving and supporting the new orleans police department policy was actually also requiring the city of new orleans to adopt that sanctuary city policy as part of the consent decree. did attorney general lynch respond to you? >> she finally did respond to me some months later with basically a nonanswer. at least she responded to you. i have written her a lot of letters and she hasn't responded to any of mine but we have police gupta here. miss gupta, you have heard from mr. landry. i have heard the exchange
9:50 am
between you and mr. butter worth and mr. richmond about really trying to clear up the record here with respect to the fact that policy is and always was in compliance with federal law and as it points out, it has not been. that's why congressman richmond last year sought to remove that provision to prohibit sanction ware cities from receiving that. immigration and proinvestigations and the content to degree. mrs. gupta given that there are concerns in the new orleans policy, by folks here, did you seek a judicial review of the policy by the district court to determine if it complied with
9:51 am
section 1373? >> the district court at both points was at february and in issuing this had reviewed the policies, yes. >> well, my time has expired and i wonder if you could carry a message to her and that's on behalf of me and millions of americans that if she believes on in forcing the rule of law, she should be prosecuting the federal immigration policy instead of writes them checks and with that i give back. >> we know recognize himself and mr. butterworth, what's the penalty for crossing illegally? >> i would differ to the department of justice. >> okay. let's try it this way, who has the immigration cases? >> again, it's outside of my
9:52 am
lane. >> so it's federal? >> yes. >> so it's both. it's either crossing a border unlawfulfully or over stating a visa is the only way to get in the country unlawfulfully. only two ways that i can think of. you either cross the boundaries or invited in and those are both exclusively federal. i think that you will agree with me that almost all of the interactions in life are with state and local law enforcement. it's not an fbi agent that stops us from speeding. it's not an atf agent that's working the bar scene. so if most of our citizen and police and encounters are state and local and immigration is federal, how are the federal officers supposed to know about
9:53 am
folks that are not here lawfully? >> sir, the department of homeland security has the pet program and i'm not at liberty to speak on. if congress passed a law that common deered every local law enforcement, we would welcome that. >> how about we just say cooperate. you don't common deer for the narcotic task forces, do you? it's called cooperation. you have a policy that says that new orleans police department shall not make inquiries. what do you mean by inquires? >> if there's a criminal warrant -- >> see, i don't know about criminal. >> if there's an outstanding
9:54 am
warrant. >> if there's -- >> okay. and they require as to the person's status. >> under the policy it's not the immigration status. >> how are the federal law enforcement officers supposed to know who is here if they do not inquire. they're not enforcing traffic laws. they're responding to the domestic calls. the fbi does not have the jurisdiction over that. that's the federal and local and state officers. >> the concerns are with the broader system.
9:55 am
>> so you arrest every criminal that you interact with. it's only -- if the original and then that's mr. chairman and asked us the rights. if the organiiginal contract wa fine, if the original indictment, would you super seed the indictment. >> generally not. >> no, you don't. if this is fine, why did we get the brand new policy. >> well, that's the provision that's skpised and then and then
9:56 am
they said that you were a prosecutor and then it was a family member that lost a loved one and to someone that was out on bond and then asked them why was that person out of jail. i never had a good answer. you can site the constitution. >> it's for somebody and who is absolutely entitled and you're either missing my point.
9:57 am
>> i did not realize after the homicide. >> let me just -- and who need to share and that's the violent crime. >> well, you and i both know that we rely and that's not been my experience and attorney general landry, i'm out of time. you asked the question.
9:58 am
>> we're in louisiana lately and the best way is that our system in this country is to say -- >> with that -- okay. you can have a minute. >> okay. first of all i want to make it very clear that i don't think that there's one member here that does not feel the deep pain for the family that lost loved one and particularly those that die and others during the baton
9:59 am
rouge disaster and then in texas and i feel for my brothers and sisters in louisiana and i w was -- and i'm asking new orleans to follow the federal law. you're not asking for there to be a declaration and receive the funds. >> yeah, i have been asking for that for violating the federal law. >> let me ask mrs. gupta is new orleans and violating federal law? >> they're not. >> they're communicating and
10:00 am
you're not blocking that. i want to make sure. >> the policy makes clear that no approximate pd can communicate with i ce. >> the time has expired. >> with that i thank all of the witnesses. we have the record and with that i thank you again to the four witnesses and we're adjourned. the chairman gives report to congress and she is testifying against the house committee that skpst texas congressman and that's live coverage of

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on