Willynilly. We release people pursuant to these statutes and regulations. There are only a limited number of crimes that we are we are required to detain people. It is mandatory. They are spelled out here very clearly. Many of them related to Drug Distribution and conspiracy. The rest of the people, as you know very well, the law requires us to release some of the a small percentage of the total. Also the immigration courts have half a million case backlog, they have the proceedings they go through. They will order release because many of these folks challenge their bond or their detention. But the rest, and i think its like 49 this past year, in the rest where i. C. E. Has discretion, where this statute has given us discretion, we have very well trained, very experienced Law Enforcement officers who look at the entire case just like a magistrate judge or a federal judge does senator cruz ms. Saldana. I want to note your testimony here, when i ask you how many criminals i. C. E. Released in 2013, you are off by a factor of three. You said 30,000. The correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000 criminals, criminal illegal aliens that i. C. E. Declined to begin deportation proceedings against despite the fact as senator sessions observed, the federal law you are holding up there says they shall be deported, the Obama Administration refused to deport them. Thats 68,000. In addition to that, there were 36,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal convictions that the Obama Administration released. I would note among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions. 426 people with Sexual Assault convictions. Were over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions. Released by this administration because this administration refuses to follow the law. Secretary saldana those numbers im looking straight at them. You asked me, i thought, about 2014. That is 30,558. And the good news is at least that was down from 2013, when it was 36,000 senator cruz you are admitting the 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that i. C. E. Did not begin deportation proceedings, you add those together its over 100,000. Secretary saldana thats right. All done pursuant to this statute that the congress has outlined. Senator cruz you heard the testimony from the victims families. I introduced case law in the senate, a mandatory minimum of five years in prison for anyone apprehended with an illegal reentry. Does i. C. E. Support case law . Secretary saldana i sure would like to look at that. Im not sure if it was introduced senator cruz last week. Secretary saldana im willing to look at any proposal along those lines and consider and work with you to help our community as opposed to put roadblocks in the way in their community policing. Senator vetter and would you tell us what you would support in that regard right now . Director saldana id be happy to work with you with any legislation you would proposed. President had occurred of his convictions, he would look into the eyes of those who lost their sisters and brothers and in the administration would stop. Eleasing murderers and rapists it is within your power to follow federal law. And in this administration refuses to do so and that is unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you to you secretary for your work. I also know senator grassley had to step out, but i wanted to thank him for bringing together the first panel of witnesses. I thought that their testimony was moving and i know that from being a former prosecutor how difficult it can be for victims and families to come forward. Im not sure if some families are still in the room, so i am thankful for you coming forward. I also wanted to thank senator find time feinstein for her statements, clearly there should have been cooperation and i think that it is important to remember that there are some of us that are willing to look at policies and look at them in a way to figure out what best helps Public Safety. And the beauty deputy secretary, you talked about the work being done. I listened to the head of the major city chiefs talk about policy, cooperating with ice, that clearly did not happen. Theye other sheriffs have taken that position and i understand that they are not going to and the mayor said that that did not happen San Francisco. That they will not notify you when a repeat felon is being released. Secretary saldana it was a little over 208. Vary . They very saldana tremendously. I think they are talking were lengthy, maybe they deported. Someone who is a repeat felon like that, you want to bring them to the u. S. Attorneys office. Do you know how many have that policy that was as severe as the sheriff did in San Francisco question mark San Francisco . Secretary said donna fest we talkedsaldana about having the greatest impact in their communities and we have made real progress. As the secretary testified last been many of them have detained. They will work with us in some manner. In some manner we are working with them. It just seems like any case like this it should be mandatory. Trying toat i am grasp. And i know that the senator is trying to as well. Secretary saldana i think that pep covers that. These are severe and dangerous criminals. That we are targeting and that we are trying to work with and say cant we all agree on this criminal history. We had worked on a case when we had convicted a man on murder, it was a horrible case, he was from russia and he has been making request to go back and we have been saying no, and sometimes you do , maybe from family members, oh send them back to the other country. It is an argument clearly for serving out sentences in the u. S. For Public Safety, but you also brought up the u. S. Attorney office, they cannot handle all these cases. But with serious ones with a number of felonies, i would think that it would become a priority in these prosecutions. Has there been discussion about this . Yes. Tary saldana i have met with the Deputy Attorney general and discussed where we can Work Together to strengthen this. I have met with the board of immigration and the subcommittee and we have discussed specifically what can you do to help us make an impact. They seem very interested. I have been a supporter of comprehensive reform and there is focus on that bill, everyone from engineers, two people getting green cards, there are many important things in that bipartisan bill, but you know the director is looking for more money for enforcement, do you think that that would be helpful as well . I am talking about from a Public Safety perspective. We heary saldana something simply stated and you wonder why we get bogged down. Putting aside public interest, you have to work on a better system. More comfortably. I would like to add to that. One issue that we have heard about this morning is the notion that individuals who are here illegally, we do not know who they are. They are not registered. They are off the grid. Both what the Deferred Action Program is and more helpfully comprehensive reform provides is a way to know who those people are. , toold them accountable know they are in those instances where they commit crimes, that is one example of many where Public Safety would be promoted by Immigration Reform. The last thing i want to bring up is the program for vick comes of crime and we have worked hard on this. I know i have had many experiences with people who have been preyed upon because they thought they had power over them because of family members or Something Else could be deported. At the program has been helpful in bringing these cases. Could he speak to that could you speak to that . We often saldana requested tvs is and i am happy visas in many in these cases stayed and apply for residency and ultimately citizenship and will make extraordinary american citizens. Thank you, very much. We look forward to working with you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for your willingness to talk to us today. I believe that the great those who have come to the United States in violation of our laws have probably done so for sympathetic reasons. They have probably been living their lives aside from the legal manner in which they chose to enter the country, they are otherwise living goodbyes. Think we can ever best them with the right to citizenship. It certainly cannot override the need that we have to ensure that u. S. Citizens are protected from violence. Including the type of violence that might result from someone who came here who should not have come here. Someone with a known criminal record who has been allowed to remain here. I have spoken at length in other hearings and on the floor of the senate about concerns i have about the use of prowithin the parole within the immigration law. That is a very narrow exception, one that allows someone to enter the country temporarily. Governing parole is very specific points out that this needs to be narrow, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant Public Benefit on the other hand. Is meantorary parole for people to enter the country for temporary occasions, the need to get medical treatment, that would be an urgent reason to allow somebody to get parole. Or if we are talking about significant Public Benefit we might add to that the hypothetical of somebody needing to come in and testify in a trial. But these are temporary and they are time sensitive. The temporary nature of perl parole is important, because once you are granted it you have removed an otherwise present and significant legal impediment to gaining access to citizenship. Granted abused or excessively or outside the framework of the law, this you can understand could really create a giant gaping hole. The president has cleverly spread the definition of parole wide enough to give recipients access to citizenship and circumstances in which citizenship would otherwise be nowavailable to them we are seeing the president expand that program. As Vice President biden announced in november, the department of Homeland Security state are establishing a program that would allow to get citizenship status under parole. I reiterate, that is supposed to admission, maybe for humanitarian reasons for Public Benefit, it is not a substitute for Refugee Status and should not be used to permit only relocate nonrefugees to the u. S. Where Refugee Status is not available. In aresident announced report last week that the department of Homeland Security will propose an expanded Parole Program for entrepreneurs. Printers are valuable. We love them. In fact we have a lot of programs designed specifically to help encourage entrepreneurs not just in the u. S. , but to come from other countries. But any program that encourages entrepreneurs to come in to this country should be established by statute, bylaw, not shoehorned into a narrow exception that is meant to a lobby and administration to step outside the normal process only under extraordinary circumstances. So, miss rodriguez, do you believe that these programs are consistent with the limited intent and temporary nature of parole . Perl rodriguez these are programs that are meant to be limited. They are meant to either afford , permanent immigration benefit nor are they meant to be utilized by everybody. I do not agree with your characters asian of the programs. But they are limited . Rodriguez that is correct. When we talk about the miners program that is a limited number of the visuals allowed to seek individuals allowed to seek parole, certain circumstances, and it is a temporary program, like you say. It is meant to be temporary , but when we look at the documentation for advanced i131. There is a form it defines Public Benefit, which was understood to be the need of someone to come in and testify at a trial. It defines that to include a semester abroad program, meeting with clients, do you think that that is a fair interpretation . Fair to put those into Public Benefit and give people the right to enter the country . Individualshese are who are participants any deferred action, not a perl program. They have the ability to temporary remain in the u. S. Under a Deferred Action Program. Parole . Y are you using mannerez that is the that those individuals are able to reenter the United States. It permits them to temporary temporarily leave and return. A and when they return a have n impediment to their pathway to citizenship lifted. Rhetoric is frederick us it removes an mpediment nine remove in a payment impeachment, is that correct . They need to qualify for whatever the basis is, for a visa or citizenship, this will not make them qualify. Is a condition present. Law,ave distorted the manipulated it beyond what the statutory textbook was supposed to be, and that draws concern. They do. You senator lee. This is an important issue. Better vetter . To say thank want you for the legislation that we will be bringing forward. Says political Law Enforcement has to cooperate with Immigration Enforcement, so i think you, you have been very active on that. And the committee and others who are working with me on that. And hopefully we will move that soon in the committee. Thank you to you both for your service. Ms. Saldana, the white house through the press secretary recently suggested that the Kate Steinlee was made possible because the immigration bill was not passed during the last congress, do you agree with that . Saldana i decline to engage in this discussion, i am just an Law Enforcement and making sure that these laws are are enforced. Ws i have no opinion one way or the other. I am focused on the job with the immigration laws and would prefer to work on that then on political questions. It is not advanced the ball advance it does not the ball forward. This, how is you your action to block sanctuary policy through the Enforcement Program going to be any more effective than it has been through the secure communities program, obviously it has been an effective through that . Senator saldana lots of controversy. As we talked to more jurisdictions, they will see this more clearly. For example, one problem in this basiss that there is no to detain someone at the state or local level beyond 48 hours. 48 hours beyond what their underlying offense called for. Have 48 hourswill notice before we release, unless we have probable cause, in which this case we have indications of a true violation with evidence that we can share with the local jurisdiction. I am glad that we are finally doing this. If and when a local jurisdiction does not comply. Saldana i do not want to see their lives go can all agree about that, but right now, there is no consequence, no and nothing happens to these jurisdictions. If this is a brandnew day, what will happen to the local jurisdictions . Saldana i am looking at that. To you do not know you do not know. Saldana we are going to talk about that, sir. The localerstand problems, i think i can help them better to figure out a solution. I am with the federal government and i can when they do not comply, will there be any negative consequences . Andana i will look at that we will see what we can do. The program has been in effect for three weeks, we just started. We asked for a chance. There were some victims families here who asked for a chance and their chance is gone in terms of their family member. This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence for those jurisdictions. When will that change . Saldana i presume when you all address Immigration Reform. Saldana the what, sir . Now were going to the political line. Reform ismmigration not political, it is an essential effort. So Congress Passing that bill that you and the obama and the obama administers prefer, you do not think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law, right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law with Immigration Enforcement . Saldana that is what i understand you are working on. You are working on it arent you working on it . Saldana oregon has rolled against us on mandatory detainers. I am looking for to looking at legislation. I want a solution as well, sir. We have been asking for a solution for that about sanctuary cities for years. It has been absently no effort from the administration absolutely no effort from the a administration before. Still today, after these tragedies, you are not prepared to say that you support any negative consequence to sanctuary city jurisdiction if they do not properly cooperate. I eagerly await you all to finally say that. To say that there needs to be some consequence, because that is the only way it will stop throughout hundreds of jurisdictions. Thank you. I offer you my assistance if you would like my input and respect to legislation that you propose to try to resolve this. Input, what with a negative consequence be . Saldana these jurisdictions have their own albums to adjust. I think that you understand this sender and that is why i want to work with you. The biggest thing i understand is that you are not prepared as we speak, even after these horrible tragedies, to support a single negative consequence against a sanctuary city if they do not properly cooperate with Immigration Enforcement, that is unfortunately the biggest thing i understand. If that is incorrect, i am eager to hear that. Saldana it is incorrect. Whatever you propose with respect to legislation, i would like to work you on it to see what we can do to help communities instead of putting roadblocks in their way. Will you tell