Testimony before the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform

Susan Tully

Testimony before the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform

State House, Room 412 East

Senator Nass, other distinguished Members of the Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding Senate Bill 275.

If enacted, SB 275 would prohibit jurisdictions from employing dangerous policies that provide a safe-haven, or “sanctuary,” in which illegal aliens can work and live without fear of apprehension by federal immigration authorities.  Such policies undoubtedly encourage illegal immigration; everyone is familiar with Kate Steinle’s story, the young woman walking with her father on the San Francisco pier who was gunned down by Juan Francisco Sanchez-Lopez, an illegal alien with seven prior criminal convictions and five previous deportations.

Sanchez-Lopez admitted that he chose to live in San Francisco because he knew he would be protected by its sanctuary policy.[1]  His belief couldn’t have been truer—as law enforcement in San Francisco had him in custody just months before Kate Steinle’s death—but refused to turn him over to federal immigration authorities. 

Many expect crimes like this to happen in big states like California, with huge illegal alien populations.  However, most would be shocked to find out these incidents are not relegated to those states alone.  Wisconsin has sheltered its share of criminal aliens. Raul Ponce-Rocha, an illegal alien from Mexico, brutally murdered Wausau high school senior Breanna Schneller in May 2009. Before illegal alien Jorge Dominguez killed the young mother in Kenosha County in 2010, he had at least 4 run-ins with law enforcement officers for serious crimes including battery and drug possession. Dominguez was released back into the community despite federal officials claiming a detainer had been issued. In 2013, in Marathon County, illegal alien Eduardo Organista-Temich was charged with sexually molesting a 7-year-old girl that he was babysitting.

While there is no firm definition of the term, generally, sanctuary policies bar state or local officials, including law enforcement, from asking lawfully stopped or detained individuals about 

their immigration status, and otherwise reporting to or cooperating with federal immigration officers.  This often includes policies limiting compliance with immigration detainer requests.

Accordingly, sanctuary policies come in all shapes and sizes. Some are written; some are not.  Some are enacted through state or local laws, while others masquerade as “welcoming” resolutions or executive orders; some even appear as internal law enforcement agency policy. 

Despite these differences in appearance, the uniting factor is that sanctuary policies place a greater emphasis on the welfare of illegal aliens than those citizens and legal residents in their own communities.  For example, days prior to the infamous 9-11 attacks, two of the hijackers were stopped on separate occasions by police.  If their backgrounds and immigration status been checked, their plot might have been uncovered before this tragedy occurred.

Sanctuary policies rely on the false premise that individuals in the country unlawfully are “law-abiding,” but simply lack “papers” or “documentation.” It wrongfully assumes that such individuals have not committed crimes and that immigration violations do not carry the same weight as other violations of federal law.

However, many provisions of federal immigration laws are criminal laws, with fines and/or jail time attached. For example, federal law provides:

• at 8 U.S.C. § 1302 that an alien has committed a crime by failing to properly register with the federal government;
• at 8 U.S.C. § 1323 that an alien has committed a crime by unlawfully bringing other individuals into the United States;
• at 8 U.S.C. § 1325 that an alien has committed a crime by failing to enter the country properly or without inspection;
• at 18 U.S.C. § 758 that an alien has committed a crime by fleeing an immigration checkpoint by a high speed motor vehicle; and
• at 19 U.S.C. § 1459 that an alien has committed a crime by entering the United States outside a designated border crossing point.[1]

Additionally, the average illegal alien routinely commits multiple crimes just to work, including falsely representing oneself as a U.S. citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911), Social Security fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408), false statements and fraudulent acts (18 U.S.C. § 1001), document fraud (8 U.S.C. 1324 c) and/or forgery or false use of a passport (18 U.S.C. 1543).[2]  It is improper for a state legislature to turn a blind-eye to sanctuary jurisdictions that enable these federal crimes. 

According to U.S. Sentencing Commission data provided at a recent U.S. House of Representatives hearing on immigration enforcement, over 35 percent of the individuals who are sentenced for federal crimes are illegal aliens.[1] Given that illegal aliens are an estimated 3.5 percent of the population[2] that means that illegal aliens are ten times more likely to be sentenced for a federal crime than legal residents.

Furthermore, shielding criminal aliens needlessly endangers innocent lives.  There are roughly 3 million criminal aliens are living in the United States, and nearly 1 million of these aliens have final orders of removal.[3] These criminals should not be able to continue to live in communities and engage in further criminal activity.

While the cost of illegal immigration to public safety is incalculable, the fiscal cost of illegal immigration also bears a heavy price tag.  Annually, U.S. taxpayers pay roughly $116 billion in costs associated with illegal immigration.  A significant majority of this price tag, $88.9 billion, is absorbed by state and local governments.^[4] 

In Wisconsin, taxpayers spend an estimated $568,453,120 million each year for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.[5] These costs come in the form of educational, healthcare, welfare, and law enforcement expenditures to illegal aliens and their families.

Sanctuary policies contribute significantly to these costs by telling individuals that despite violating federal laws, law enforcement and other government officials will ignore them.  Just because the regulation of immigration is a federal issue, does not mean that state and local law enforcement agencies must overlook immigration violations that harm their communities. 

To the contrary, the cost of illegal immigration disproportionately affects state and local governments, giving them even more incentive to cooperate with federal officials. 

To ensure the safety of our communities, state and local law enforcement and governments should be encouraged—not discouraged—from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.  SB 275 provides a step toward that path.  Thank you again for inviting me to testify today, and I welcome any questions you may have.