Testimony of John Nickell

Mr. Chairman,

Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before you today on this important issue. As you know, immigration is a huge problem in our society and our country as a whole. An even larger problem is the restriction of local law enforcement officers, by their respective agencies, from enforcing immigration laws.

Even though the main topic of discussion is a case involving the New York Police Department (NYPD) and five illegal immigrants, these types of crimes, I believe, continue on a regular basis throughout the country without our knowledge. When local agencies around the country enact a "sanctuary law" type of policy, society at large is placed at risk. Sanctuary laws undermine the authority and effectiveness of street level officers and completely render them ineffective to prevent potential further criminal activity. With this type of policy, authorities may never know if an individual is in the United States illegally and if they could have been removed before they had the opportunity to commit a criminal act.

This similar type of "sanctuary law" policy is in effect with the Houston Police Department as well. We are specifically told we "shall not inquire as to the citizenship status of any person, nor detain or arrest any persons solely on the belief that they are in this country illegally."

This General Order also states: "As police officers, we must rely upon the cooperation of all persons, including citizens, documented aliens, and undocumented aliens, in our effort to maintain public order and combat crime." This same General Order further states: " Undocumented alien status is not, in itself, a matter for local law enforcement." I fail to see the logic in this thinking.

Here we have a many contradictions within law enforcement itself. First, we know that "undocumented alien" is someone who has either entered this country illegally or has overstayed his or her visa. If an individual is considered an "illegal alien," in any aspect, then we must allow all law enforcement officers to pursue every lawful action when this individual is taken into custody. Second, the Houston Police Department General Order states "we must rely upon the cooperation of all persons." Is it reasonable to even think we can expect cooperation from an individual whose first act in this country was to violate its entry laws? Should we expect cooperation from someone that refuses to adhere to the agreements of their visa and overstays their legal visitation? The third and possibly largest contradiction in this matter is the "pick and choose" type of association with other agencies. Police agencies, nationwide, enthusiastically join with the FBI and DEA for drug busts and other high profile cases. However, we refuse to even consider working with the INS for politically expedient and correct reasons.

Inconsistent policies such as this take away from the first line of interior enforcement of immigration laws. When we shackle law enforcement officers in such a manner, instead of protecting U.S. citizens, and people who are here legally, the danger to society greatly increases by allowing potential violent criminals to freely roam our cities. The case in New York points to this, as well as the Angel Resendiz case. Angel Resendiz committed one of his many murders in the Houston area while on his multi-state killing spree.

What if we, as a police agency, come into contact with an individual such as the criminals in New York or Angel Resediz, and refuse to work with the INS by not inquiring into that individual's immigration status? What if, after an individual was handled by an agency that has a "sanctuary law" policy, that individual is turned loose and then commits a violent crime? Who do we hold responsible for criminal acts they commit after being released? Could working closely with the INS databases, which may help to identify potential offenders, have prevented this crime? If we can run criminal checks through NCIC and we can perform background checks on law abiding American citizens who wish to purchase firearms, why can we not work with the INS?

According to a September 27th article in the Washington Times, entitled "Loss of agents hinders effort to secure border," the author tells us that Border Patrol agents are "leaving in staggering numbers." According to the article " The U.S. Border Patrol is facing a 15 percent attrition rate that threatens to increase to more than 20 percent by the end of the year."

How can we, as a nation, expect any type of immigration control or enforcement with these kinds of attrition rates in our Border Patrol and refusing to allow local law enforcement officers to participate in immigration enforcement? The answer is, we can't! To allow these types of policies to continue within individual police departments is a great disservice to the law-abiding, tax-paying people of the United States.

The Sunday, February 23, 2003, Houston Chronicle carried an opinion article by Baltimore Mayor, Martin O'Malley, about America's continued vulnerability. The Mayor states "Most of America's population centers, and most of its economic infrastructure, are nearly as vulnerable now as they were on Sept. 11, 2001." If the Mayor of a city like Baltimore is making this strong of a point on this particular issue, how can we, as local law enforcement agencies, continue to refuse to help in the enforcement of immigration laws? We in the law enforcement community should not be restricted from working with each other by mandates and policies such as these. Whether the law that is being violated is Federal, State, or local, we cannot afford to arbitrarily choose the laws we wish to enforce. If we continue this practice, we do so at the Nation's peril.