Comcast is partnering with 1 ,000 community centers to create Wi -Fi -enabled lift zones so students from low -income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
Comcast supports C -SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front -row seat to democracy.
And live now to Capitol Hill for a hearing considering the potential consequences of a mass deportation initiative as suggested by President -elect Trump.
We join the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in progress here on C -SPAN.
Mr. Arthur, you are with the Center for Immigration Studies, is that right?
That's correct, Senator.
And that's a nonpartisan think tank, is it?
It is, sir.
Okay.
The border is an open, bleeding wound, isn't it?
That's a fair way to characterize what's been going on for the last four years, sir.
The southern border is chaotic by design, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
I've been covering the border for three decades, and yeah, it's pretty chaotic.
Would it be fair to say that the broken southern border is man -made?
It would be fair to say that, sir, based on policies that have been implemented.
And that man's name is Joe Biden, isn't it?
That would be a fair assessment, yes, Senator.
Under President Biden, if you wait in line for legal immigration, you're a chump, aren't you?
When you look at the benefits that have been given to people and the speed at which they've been released into the United States, I would be chagrined if I were waiting for you.
You're a chump, aren't you?
Yes, sir.
General, you believe in open borders, don't you?
I believe in the rule of law, sir.
Senator, I'm not here to discuss immigration policy.
I'm here to discuss whether or not we use the military to enforce it.
And it makes you angry that most Americans don't believe in open borders, doesn't it?
Not in the slightest, sir.
Again, I am not here to discuss immigration policy.
Yeah.
Duty, honor, respect.
You talked about that in your opening statement.
On October 14th of this year, you went on CNN.
I want to read you what you said.
Make sure I'm accurate.
Here's what you said.
President Trump is not like any sane leader.
I'm very proud of General Milley for saying that President Trump is a total fascist.
Did I read that accurately?
Senator.
I am happy to discuss my personal perspective with you separately at any time.
That's not the purpose of the hearing today.
Did I read that accurately?
I believe so, yes.
Yeah.
You think you're smarter than the American people, don't you?
Absolutely not, Senator.
I am here to discuss the use of the military as part of this mass deportation.
You think you're more virtuous than the American people, don't you, General?
Senator, I am insulted by your comment.
Duty, honor, and respect.
You talked about that in your opening statement, didn't you?
Yes, sir.
Ms. Moran said, I wrote down her words.
She said, by their actions, you know what someone's character is like.
You agree with that?
Senator, for 35 years, I served my country with absolute honor and distinction, and I will continue to do so.
You agree with what Ms. Moran said?
Of course.
Mister...
I've got a few minutes left.
23 seconds.
Well, actually, you let Miss Klobuchar go well over, so I'm assuming you'll extend me the same...
I'll give you the same minute I gave to her.
You gave it a minute 20.
I timed it.
You're using...
I watch you like a hawk, Dick.
Mr. Melnick.
Mr. Reikland Melnick.
You believe in open borders, too, don't you?
I do not, Mr. Kennedy.
Okay.
On November 1st, 2022, you tweeted, both Texas and Louisiana have their knives out for black immigrants.
Do you remember that tweet?
I don't, but it's quite possible.
What Texans...
It's not only possible, it happened.
You're not denying it, are you?
No, I'm saying...
What Texans?
I actually don't know the context.
Who are you talking to about...
Who in Texas had their knives out for black immigrants?
I'm guessing the context, but my suspicion is that it has to do with the Attorney General Ken Paxton and the Attorney General of Louisiana.
You don't have a name, do you?
Give me a name.
I just said Ken Paxton.
You don't have a name, do you?
You just said it, did you?
I just said Ken Paxton.
All right, how about Louisiana?
You said Louisiana has its knives out for black immigrants.
Who in Louisiana were you talking about?
Again, I'm not certain that was two years ago, and as I'm sure you know, much has happened in the last two years.
Well, did you say it?
Again, I do not remember the context, Senator Kennedy.
You said somebody had their knives out from Louisiana for black immigrants, but you don't know who they were?
You just said it?
I said the Attorney General of Louisiana and Texas, and I believe this referred to specifically lawsuits brought and arguments that were made in court that the arrival of Haitians and others...
I'm out of time, but I want to get you on the record.
Thank you very much, Senator.
I appreciate your questions.
I believe that the Attorney General at that time of Louisiana had his eyes, not knives out for black immigrants.
That's your testimony.
Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Yes.
Senator Arono.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have a broken immigration system.
This was acknowledged over a decade ago when I first arrived in the United States Senate and we actually in 2013 we had a bipartisan Comprehensive immigration reform bill that addressed the issues of all of the immigrants who are working in various large sectors of our economy,
i .e. in the ag sector, where the Chamber of Commerce are concerned about what we're doing with immigration policy, where we dealt with the undocumented immigrants who are working and paying taxes for which they get absolutely...
You know, they're paying the Social Security, Medicare, they don't get those benefits at all.
So we have a broken immigration system.
We actually had the two senators who are sitting here, the chairman and the former chair of the committee, who are part of...
A comprehensive immigration reform.
So I don't know why we cannot come to some sort of an agreement to deal with the massive complex issues that confront us.
So that is what I'm calling for.
Until we make a commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, pointing fingers at the Biden administration or any other administration is not going to get us anywhere fast.
And in fact, every administration has I certainly didn't support the Trump policy of separating thousands,
thousands of children from their parents without keeping track of who their parents were.
All I'm asking for is a rational, reasonable, humane immigration policy.
So that was what I thought the comprehensive immigration bill in 2013 was.
I didn't agree with all of the provisions, but some of us worked really hard on it, and Senator Graham, as I mentioned, was part of that.
So that's what I think we ought to be focusing on.
Now, in a general manner, I'm glad you're here because we have a president who has said many times that he intends to use the military to do immigration policies.
To effect his immigration policies, and General Manor, you said that that is going to have a very negative impact on readiness, for example, because our military, including the National Guard,
they are not trained for immigration enforcement.
So, as the chair currently of the Armed Services Committee's Readiness Subcommittee, I share your concerns.
By the way, maybe you can go over again a little bit more.
What kind of infrastructure would be needed to enforce immigration deportation on up to 4 % of our population?
What kind of infrastructure would we need in order to affect that?
I have to defer to the other experts on the panel.
Okay, well then that would be Mr. Ragnick -Melnick.
Yes.
Would you like to go into some of that?
Senator, in order to carry out that form of operation will require hiring tens of thousands of new law enforcement agents, will require building dozens if not hundreds of new detention centers,
hiring thousands of new judges all at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, potentially up to or more than a trillion dollars over the course of more than a decade.
Do you support comprehensive immigration reform?
I do.
Does anybody on this panel not support comprehensive immigration reform that really gets to some of the problems, well, that really addresses the issues that we're facing?
Anybody on the panel?
Senator, I have to say, comprehensive immigration reform is not a defined term, and as with all legislation, the devil's in the detail.
Well, you can look at, excuse me, you can look at the 2013 bill, and that had some of the kinds of, that would be what I would describe as comprehensive.
It was not the answer, it was not the be all and end all, but it was pretty comprehensive, wouldn't you say?
I was actually on the bench at the time that that bill was introduced.
I was an immigration judge and not involved in legislation.
Trust me when I say that.
It was about as comprehensive immigration reform as we have managed to do in over a decade at this point.
And that's more, I think, what we need to do.
And I don't think there's anybody here who supports something called the open borders.
Because as I said, every single administration has had border enforcement policy.
You may not agree with all that.
I don't think there's anybody sitting here who supports open borders, whatever the heck that means.
But we all know that we need to have border control.
We do need that.
But what are we going to do about the 11 million to 13 million undocumented people here who are very much a part of our community and the fabric of many, many communities, not to mention that there are...
U .S. citizens that are part of their families, and are we going to start busting them up?
What's that going to do?
So, you know, before we start throwing out all kinds of so -called solutions, I think we need to think about what are we going to do to have a rational, reasonable immigration policy, and that's what I'm calling for.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Senator Blackburn?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to each of you for being here today.
Ms. Moran, I am so sorry for your loss.
I know that's been a very difficult time for you and your family, and this truly is a season of sorrow for you all, and I recognize that.
I find it so interesting, this open border policy that we've seen is not a compassionate policy.
I've talked to people that work with human trafficking and sex trafficking and what is happening to women and children is abhorrent and we all are fully aware of that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciated your remark that we should deport those that are truly a danger to Americans.
I think that's...
That's accurate.
I don't think there's anything anyone would disagree with that.
We've all seen the uptick in violent crimes such as Ms. Moran and her family have experienced, and this is the reason I reintroduced my CLEAR Act this year, which would enable local law enforcement, when they apprehend someone who's in the country illegally, To detain them and then call on ICE to deport them, and then the federal government have to repay that local law enforcement agency for
what they've spent in that apprehension, that detention.
And we should pass this bill today.
And that would be a good thing for this committee to be doing this last week.
Pull it up.
Put it on the hotline and run it.
Is there anybody on this panel that disagrees with deporting criminal illegal aliens?
Raise your hand if you disagree with that.
Everybody agrees those that have committed crimes against our citizens should be deported.
Mr. Arthur, I want to come to you.
Talk for just one minute about...
Why it is important that we empower local law enforcement to carry out the job.
Well, you actually heard Mr. Reikland -Melnick talk about how few ICE enforcement removal officers there are.
There's always going to be a set number of those individuals.
When you allow police officers who are involved in their community, who are the first line, actually putting hands on criminals, they're going to be the people who are best able to pull those individuals out of the community.
It's important to note, Senator, that when you talk about immigrant crime, You know, Ms. Morin's situation is horrible, and every crime is horrible.
So much of that immigrant crime takes place in immigrant communities.
Sanctuary jurisdictions do nothing but punish the immigrants that those individuals that live in those communities, that those criminals are sent back to.
So that's why it's absolutely crucial.
I appreciate that.
So I think we should move forward with my legislation, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reikland -Melnick, I'd like to come to you.
I want to talk about some of your tweets.
You've been active on X.
Here's one.
This is bad analysis that bears little resemblance to the facts.
The Remain in Mexico program was not very successful.
It was a human rights disaster that fed people to the cartels with not much impact on border crossings.
It wasn't.
In fact, it was one of a suite of programs that went into effect in 2019, about four or five different ones over the course of about eight months.
Yes, and I can tell you the stories of the women sent back by the United States to Mexico who were raped in Mexico because of that.
And we sent them back to those traffickers.
Remain in Mexico gave people to the cartels and we turned our eyes away from them.
It was not.
There are not 320 ,000 missing children.
That number is a false interpretation of a DHS -OIG report that said...
That 32 ,000 people who entered as unaccompanied children from 2019 to 2023 were ordered deported for missing court and ICE failed to file charging documents for 291 ,000 more.
That's right.
That's an accurate description of the OIG report.
This is a human rights disaster.
Because what we have heard is the DHS Inspector General and what they have testified is that they found 32 ,000 migrant children did not show up for their court date and an additional 291 ,000 migrant children never received notices to appear.
That's correct.
That's what Mike Reed said.
So it isn't your testimony that DHS does in fact
No, because that's not DHS's function here.
It's also Office of Refugee Resettlement.
It is DHS and ORR.
It is DHS and ORR.
I guess the broader point is somebody isn't missing if no one's looking for them.
What we know is that through reports, that have been made, reporting even the NEW YORK Times many of these children are in abusive situations.
They are working in plants and indeed DHS says that you've got this, 320 ,000 migrant children that cannot be located.
That is a human rights disaster.
I yield back.
Senator Blackmun, they did not say they can't be located.
They said that they had not even attempted to file a charging document.
My time has expired.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to give the witness an opportunity to finish his remarks.
I just want to know, the DHS report did not say these children were missing.
It said that ICE had failed on the job to actually start the court process for them.
If ICE filed the court documents, many of those people would be living at the exact address that ICE told them.
It's just ICE has not filed the charging documents.
It's not that they're missing.
And of course, exploitation is very real and we've called for more labor enforcement to ensure it doesn't happen.
Senator Padilla?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The fact that we're still discussing, debating the struggle to reconnect children who were separated from their parents more than four years ago today should tell us a lot about what to expect in the next administration.
I think it's worthy of further conversation.
A different hearing, a different day to focus on that.
Just as a reminder for folks that are observing today's hearing that the topic, the stated topic of today's hearing is, quote, how mass deportations will separate American families.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Statement I made at the outset, which is how complex this conversation in this policy area is.
And so it requires thoughtful and nuanced solutions.
Senator Graham was talking about the numbers, the numbers, the numbers, the numbers, and even questioned witnesses of would you be opposed to someone who has had their day in court, he said.
And has been denied a further stay in the United States after having had their day in court.
That sheds light on process, due process, often lack thereof.
Representation in the process, lack of representation in the process.
I'm for a process and finality of a process, a finality, an answer.
Clearly about your future in a matter of weeks and months, not years and years, but that requires investment in the process by the federal government and hearing officers and immigration judges.
So let's just lay that out if we're going to be genuine and serious about tackling the backlogs and the issues.
Second, man, if I had a nickel for every time I heard fentanyl in this committee.
Serious problem.
Serious problem.
But irresponsible in how it's misportrayed so often in immigration conversations.
Fentanyl needs to be addressed.
Fentanyl needs to be stopped.
Its illegal importation needs to be tackled.
But if we're going to do it thoughtfully and seriously, let's look at what the Customs and Border Protection Agency tells us.
80%.
Of individuals who are prosecuted and convicted for bringing fentanyl into this country are United States citizens.
Happy to share the link, folks.
Happy to share the report.
So if that's a concern, then let's address the heart of the concern and not just use it as a soundbite to further attack immigrants.
Oh, by the way, did you know the numbers at the southern border are way down?
People talking about this crisis at the border.
We always need to do more to ensure a safe, orderly and humane border.
But some of these numbers that are being tossed around are not what's happening today because of President Biden's policies this last year.
So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves and the public.
Now, that being said.
Mr. Reikland -Melnick, you're pretty popular today.
I have a question for you as well.
As you know, and you've referenced, the largest mass deportation effort in U .S. history was President Eisenhower's Operation Webeck.
I referenced it in my opening statements.
During that operation, more than half a million Mexicans and many United States citizens were deported.
And as far as anybody can tell, We're good.
Does food become cheaper with mass deportations?
Mass deportations would not cause food prices to become cheaper.
The exact opposite would occur.
In fact, a single worksite raid in 2018 under the Trump administration at a beef plant in Tennessee led to ground beef prices rising by 25 cents for the year that the plant was out of operation following the raid.
And just to follow up to that question, I'm cognizant of my time, Mr. Chairman.
I've referenced so many industries that have significant percentages of undocumented workforce in them.
I think chief among them is the agricultural industry, not just nationally, but particularly in the state like California, the largest agricultural producing state in the nation, where estimates are well more than 75 % of the workforce.
I hear from growers, as do all my colleagues.
I hear from labor contractors, as do all my colleagues, about how easy it is for them to recruit United States citizens to do the work in the fields.
And let me tell you how easy it is.
It is not.
There's a reason that...
The agricultural industry relies on immigrants, including so many undocumented immigrants, to help keep the food supply chain going, keep food on the tables of American families.
And I invite my colleagues, if you want to get a taste of what it's like and the difficulties for the recruitment, to spend a day in the fields like I did in 2022.
Picking radishes and parsley, like Senator Booker did in 2023.
Happy to work with growers and farm workers to provide that opportunity for all of you.
Follow -up question, Mr. Reikland -Malik.
Just briefly, describe to us what it would look like if the agricultural industry were suddenly to lose half of its workforce.
I mean, if it was overnight, the U .S. food supply would crumble.
Undocumented workers work across the agricultural sector, from picking crops in the field to meat processing to poultry processing to dairy to everything in between.
And these are workers that, without them, our food supply would drastically diminish.
I'm not saying that there's no jobs Americans will do.
Of course, that's not true.
Americans have done those jobs in the past, but it could take decades before we got enough workers to replace the experience and the knowledge of some of these workers who have been doing the jobs for 20, 30 years.
It is not something that can just be replaced overnight and would cause severe impact to the U .S. food supply.
Thank you, Senator Padilla.
Violent criminals, let's go after them.
Senator Tillis?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to paint a picture of the crisis at the border and what the incoming administration has to deal with.
Roughly 8 million people came into this country illegally from the outgoing administration's border policies.
8 million.
Does anyone find that acceptable?
I'm going to give you all a chance to answer that question shortly.
The American people elected a new president in large part to secure the border and deport people who came illegally under their predecessor.
So to my Democratic colleagues, how many illegal immigrants being deported by the new administration would you find objectionable?
Mr. Melnick, I'll ask you.
A million?
I think a million would be a disaster.
2 million?
Again, considering we're talking about law -abiding people who have been here for decades, I think that is enough that would have severe negative ramifications for the United States.
3 million?
Same answer.
5 million?
Same answer, even worse ramifications.
Do you think it would be fair or moral to deport any illegal immigrants?
Yes.
I'm not a supporter of open borders, as I said before.
Well, I'm kind of curious.
What your position was back during the Obama administration when that's exactly what he did.
I'm not reading what Trump intends to do.
I'm reading exactly what President Barack Obama did when he came into office and deported nearly 5 million people, in excess of 3 million people.
So at that time, were you involved politically or in this space at the time that Obama was here?
How old were you back then?
I was a graduate of law school and was working at the time.
Were you opining on deportations at that time?
I was not.
Do you believe that President Obama made a grave, horrible, inhumane mistake by deporting those folks?
Well, it wasn't 5 million people.
That came in under the Bush administration?
It wasn't 5 million people.
We're looking at internal ICE deportations.
It was over 3 million.
So let's not split hairs.
Actual numbers are closer to 1 .5 internal ICE deportations.
But you said that was immoral.
So you said President Obama was immoral and inappropriate.
I don't normally get into these antagonistic sorts of discussions here but it needs to be said because You just, a month ago, said at the turn of the century,
Jim Crow was legal, lynchings were at their highest level in U .S. history, women couldn't vote, the infant mortality rate was 165 per 1 ,000, and the average life expectancy was 47.
Oh.
And we also had quasi -open borders.
That part wasn't bad.
So let me tell you what I tell everyone who comes in this room and has the polarizing testimony, sir, that you have had.
You're a part of the problem.
I'm a part of a group of people here who have said, as the president did, incidentally, on Sunday, he believes there should be a path for dreamers.
We're demonizing President Trump for something he may or may not do.
But he has said to his Republican base, he believes that there should be certainty for dreamers.
He's also said that we have to have a secure border.
And as long as the border is not secure, people like me who try to treat people who are in the state that they are here with respect and understanding some of the issues that Mr. Padilla brought up,
you cause people to go into their corners and get nothing done.
That is why Chair Durbin has not been able to fulfill the promise on DREAMers every single year he's tried for the last 20 because people like you Let me finish,
and then I'll let you speak as long as the chair wants to.
Have a rational discussion about it.
Because if we don't secure the border, I can't get a path to citizenship for the DACA population.
If we don't secure the border, I can't get Democrats and Republicans to come together and give certainty to the dreamer population.
Are there any dreamers in the room?
Raise your hand if you are.
All right.
Well, this is a part of the problem, ladies and gentlemen.
You have an incoming Republican president who just said as late as Sunday that he's prepared to give you certainty.
But we have people here demonizing him for asking the reasonable question of can't we all agree that we need to secure the border?
So if you are sincerely, I don't know how you make your money.
I don't care.
What your political motives are but number one I would really appreciate it to say if you would go out on social media and say that the President Obama did a horrible disservice to those people he deported and he's as wrong -minded as every other Republican who said we've got to secure the border,
deport people because you can't have one being okay and the other one not being okay.
And if you don't come to the table and recognize in a world where, yeah, 100 years ago, it was probably safe to have a quasi -open border because the world order was changing and we emerged as a world leader.
But today, we have terrorists that can fly from the Middle East, land in Mexico, and come across the border in less than 24 hours.
We're not living in Ellis Island anymore.
We've got a problem that can't be solved and people like you...
No.
Thank you, Senator.
It's my time, so I'm going to speak.
First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses.
I think we're actually going to start making progress on Securing the border and on a sensible and humane policy.
I want to thank folks from the immigrant community and dreamers who I know are here and acknowledge my respect for the contributions you've made to our country and I don't want to lose the benefit of that.
As I've listened to my colleagues, I think there's, it's not that complex.
Number one, I think there is agreement.
We have to have a secure border.
You can't have a country that doesn't have a control over its border.
Second, I think there's broad consensus that criminals who are here should be deported.
Ms. Moore and I just want to acknowledge, as we all have, the incredible life you've had, the loss of your daughter and your own experience.
People who do that, they shouldn't have gotten in and they shouldn't be here.
And if they are here...
You should be in jail.
Third, we have the question of people whose status has been determined, but it took so long for that status to be determined.
In many cases, years and years that they become an integral part of their community and they put roots down here and they haven't committed a crime.
This is where we don't have consensus.
There's a view among some, and I think President -elect Trump has this view, that if you are here illegally, no matter how long it took for that adjudication to occur, no matter what your roots are, then you should go back.
Senator Graham was indicating a view that if you've been adjudicated, fair is fair and you should go back.
There's another point of view, and that is that if you have been here, and we had a system that didn't adjudicate in any kind of timely way, And you have been working, I'll put it in very specific terms,
on a farm in Vermont for seven or for eight or for nine years.
And you've become a contributing member to the community and the economy.
There's another approach one could take where you might pay a fine, you might have to make amends for the fact that you came here illegally, but there'd be an acknowledgement of the contributions you've made, the roots you've established,
and what the harm to the community would be And that certainly would be the case in Vermont, just speaking about agriculture.
I just can't imagine, actually I can't imagine, I've talked to some farmers who, if they lost their labor, would lose their farm because cows don't milk themselves and they are not able to get local labor to do that.
So there is a real potential here for us to find common ground and get something done that is Securing the border, that is deporting criminals,
that is making judgments about allowing people the option of paying a fine, where there would be a deterrent as long as we have a secure border.
You know, Ms. Morin, I just want to ask you, you've suffered so much, and I want to express to you my gratitude for your advocacy on behalf of others.
If we had a secure border, you're advocating for that, and that keeps criminals out, right?
Would it be in conflict with what you think would be a reasonable outcome for, like, dreamers, for instance, kids who came here with their parents who've not committed any crime, who've become parts of the community?
Would that be something that you would see as a reasonable outcome?
A couple of things from listening to everyone speak.
One, as an American citizen and not a politician, so I don't know all the ins and outs, but just what I'm hearing is the bottom line is profit.
To an American citizen, they're hearing you're putting lives, you're putting profit above American lives.
So that's the message you're communicating.
For me personally, our country is made of immigrants.
We have 250 years or more of immigrants that have come to this country and have built the country to what it is today.
And we are descendants of those immigrants.
The issue is having an open border that allows an invasion of people.
That compromises our national security because our borders we don't have enough border agents to stem the flow of immigrants but then also they bypass the law to speed up them coming in and in doing so they miss all the criminals that are coming into our country.
So I think we need to put those laws back into place and to practice so we can catch them at the border.
I thank you for that.
I mean, the heart of...
At least as I hear what you're saying, is that we have to have a secure border in the first place.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, thank you again.
My time is up and I'm going to...
Who's...
Are you next?
Holly?
Senator from Missouri.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
I have to say, I'm kind of amazed that we're holding this hearing.
To me, it's remarkable that the idea of actually, as you were just saying... Mr. Moran, the idea of enforcing our laws, protecting our border, securing our streets from criminals, it's amazing that that's controversial at all.
And it says something a lot about the other side of the dais that we're having this hearing today.
Let me just ask you, Mr. Reif and Melnick, I mean, is it really such a bad idea to deport people like the criminal who killed this young man?
This is Travis Wolf.
He was 12 years old when he was killed.
He was mowed down.
And I do mean mowed down in a car by an illegal immigrant, 12 years of age, walking along a sidewalk in my state of Missouri, mowed down by an illegal immigrant, who I think also had a prior criminal record.
Is this such a bad idea to deport the person who killed him?
Any person who commits a heinous crime should suffer the consequences under the law.
Good.
What about Officer David Lee?
Officer David Lee was killed in Missouri just a few months ago by another illegal immigrant once again in a car who used it as a lethal weapon to ram him and kill him.
Is it so wrong, such a bad idea to deport the illegal immigrant who killed this good man?
Again, any person who commits an awful act should face the full force of the law.
We've had multiple stabbings in the state of Missouri at laundromats in O 'Fallon, Missouri, where innocent civilians were going to do their laundry of an evening and were attacked with knives, slashed, bled, stomped upon.
Should the illegals who did that, should they not be deported?
No, as I said, if you commit an offense, you should have face consequences, but the overwhelming majority of the 13 million people here today have not committed any offenses.
We've had officers assaulted in Kansas City, on the other side of the state, who have been assaulted by illegal immigrants.
One officer required over 100 stitches to the head, a police officer, earlier this year.
Should the illegal immigrant who did that not be deported?
Well, let's talk about the rest of the people who you don't want to be deported.
You said in an article that you wrote recently New report shows devastating costs of mass deportation.
You wrote this in October.
Do you remember this piece?
Yes, that is a summary of our report.
Yeah, so in this piece, and it's also in your written testimony, you talk about how much the economy will lose if the United States actually enforces our immigration laws.
And deports folks who are here illegally.
And I want to quote you now.
You say some industries would be particularly hard hit, including construction, agriculture, and hospitality, which combined would lose more than two and a half million workers.
What's the argument here?
That there aren't American workers who are available to do those jobs?
No.
And as I said previously, there likely are.
But the issue is that we've lost decades.
And you don't want their wages to rise?
I think that we want to pass a path to citizenship so we can have a level and fair playing field for every American.
Why would you want American citizens and those who are here lawfully to have to compete against illegal immigrants who, by the way, are often paid non -minimum wage, who are not given the federally mandated benefits precisely because they're here illegally?
Why would you want to drive down the wages of millions of working Americans who can't get those jobs in construction, agriculture, and hospitality because illegal immigrants are getting them?
Suppressing wages in the meantime.
Why would you want to do that?
Well, if you'd been here for my initial testimony, you'd know I don't want...
Oh, listen, I read your testimony word for word, and I've been watching it, and I know what the answer is.
You don't actually care about working people because you're absolutely hell -bent on this ideological agenda of opening our border.
You want to give everybody who's here a path to citizenship.
You want blanket amnesty.
You talk about mass deportations.
That's your word, not Trump's.
You want mass amnesty, right?
It's right here in your testimony.
We want a path to citizenship for people who pass a background check, who pay a fine.
That's amnesty.
Who you just said is millions of people.
13 million people.
Right.
13 million people you want to dump into the labor force.
They are already in the labor force.
Illegally, they're here.
Taking jobs from American citizens.
Oh, perfect.
So here's your plan.
So just if you're wondering, America, here's the Democrats' plan.
Senator Hawley, they can't flood the labor force if they're already part of the labor force, which is the economic issue today.
The majority have been here for over 15 years, many millions have been here since the Reagan administration.
The American people just voted.
You know what?
It's my time, not yours.
So you're here to answer my questions, not to offer a soliloquy.
And let me just end with this.
The American people just got a good look at your economic program and they voted against it.
Senator Hawley, we have a choice.
We can either
And we'll leave this here for live coverage now of the U .S. House.
You can continue watching, though, if you go to our website, c -span .org.