Here is my five-minute opening statement, as prepared:
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
For half a century, the Cato Institute’s research has shown that people—whatever their ancestry, background, or birthplace—can thrive in a free society. Immigrants come to work for us and with us to make our lives better.
They work at higher rates and are nearly twice as likely to start businesses. Immigrants have reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years.
And yet Congress has not updated the legal immigration system during that entire time, so just 3 percent of all legal immigrant applicants received approval in 2024.
Rather than fix this broken system, the new administration banned half—half—of all the legal immigrants who had made it to the end of that process, including the spouses and children of US citizens.
The fallout from this flawed system is left to our cities to manage. In many areas, one in five residents lives with someone here illegally. Mass deportation is not an option for these places. It is an attack on them.
It is taking Americans—Americans—away from their spouses, parents, pastors, parishioners, employees, employers, customers, and friends. It’s not us Americans versus them immigrants. Cities know immigrants are part of us.
They also know immigrants are here to build, not destroy. A mountain, literally a mountain, of research proves that immigrants—and reasonable limits on participation with ICE—do not increase crime rates.
Immigrants—even illegal immigrants—are half as likely to be incarcerated for crimes. According to DHS, only about 3 percent of illegal immigrants have any criminal convictions.
Immigrants reduce crime rates, which means you’re less likely to be a crime victim. Mass deportation—not immigration—is the threat to cities.
Let me be clear: When a noncitizen does victimize someone, they should be convicted, imprisoned, and deported.
But it is DHS that rejects that formula. Just 28 percent of the people detained by ICE right now were convicted of any crime.
This is no surprise. DHS has abandoned its public safety mission. It stripped millions of vetted immigrants of legal status just so it could deport them.
Instead of protecting us, DHS violates the Constitution. Its masked agents invade our homes without warrants.
They detain without evidence and deport without due process. They arrest legal immigrants for writing opinion articles.
They intimidate, beat, and even kill Americans who protest. They lie to the courts, and then they ignore them.
With all this unconstitutional mayhem, Congress should not itself violate the Constitution by threatening local law enforcement—not for interfering with ICE—but rather for following their own laws that they swore an oath to uphold.
Under our system of federalism and the Constitution, Congress can’t force cities to do its bidding—whether on immigration, guns, or the environment.
If Congress wants cities to help DHS, it’ll need those cities to trust DHS. But to get trust, you need to be trustworthy. And this DHS is not.
Consider this: Before this administration, noncitizens were more likely to report serious crimes to the police than US-born citizens.
Now DHS is arresting immigrant crime victims. For example, in Iowa, a shooting victim, who helped bring to justice violent robbers, was arrested by ICE before he had even healed.
But since he had a pending charge for an unpaid traffic ticket, ICE considers him a criminal. This has caused filings for U visas—for crime victims working with police—to drop by 63 percent. This is not making Americans safer.
Congress must require DHS to focus on real threats, and it must empower Americans to sue federal agents for violating the Constitution. We need accountability and constitutionality to restore trust.
Thank you.
You can read my full written testimony here.
My exchanges with Sens. Jeff Merkely (D‑OR), Chris Van Hollen (D‑MD), Ron Johnson (R‑WI), and John Kennedy (R‑LA) can be found on Substack.
Facts Only
The Cato Institute has conducted research on immigration for 50 years.
Immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start businesses compared to native-born citizens.
Immigrants have reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years.
Congress has not updated the legal immigration system in 30 years.
In 2024, only 3% of legal immigrant applicants received approval.
The current administration banned half of all legal immigrants who had completed the approval process, including spouses and children of U.S. citizens.
One in five residents in many areas lives with someone who is in the country illegally.
Immigrants are half as likely to be incarcerated for crimes compared to native-born citizens.
Only about 3% of illegal immigrants have criminal convictions, according to DHS.
DHS has detained millions of vetted immigrants to facilitate deportations.
ICE currently detains individuals without criminal convictions; only 28% of detainees have been convicted of any crime.
DHS agents have conducted warrantless home invasions, detained individuals without evidence, and deported people without due process.
ICE has arrested legal immigrants for writing opinion articles.
DHS has intimidated, beaten, and killed Americans protesting their actions.
DHS has lied to courts and ignored court orders.
Before the current administration, noncitizens were more likely to report serious crimes to police than U.S.-born citizens.
DHS has arrested immigrant crime victims, including a shooting victim in Iowa who had a pending charge for an unpaid traffic ticket.
U visa filings for crime victims cooperating with police have dropped by 63%.
The testimony calls for Congress to require DHS to focus on real threats and empower Americans to sue federal agents for constitutional violations.
Executive Summary
The testimony highlights the economic and social contributions of immigrants, noting that they work at higher rates, are more likely to start businesses, and have reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years. However, the legal immigration system has not been updated in decades, with only 3% of applicants receiving approval in 2024. The current administration has further restricted legal immigration, banning half of approved applicants, including spouses and children of U.S. citizens. The testimony argues that mass deportation disrupts communities, as immigrants are integrated into American life and do not increase crime rates—in fact, they are half as likely to be incarcerated. It criticizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for overreach, including warrantless raids, detentions without due process, and targeting crime victims, which has eroded trust and reduced cooperation with law enforcement. The speaker calls for congressional action to hold DHS accountable and restore constitutional protections.
The testimony presents a strong case for immigration reform, emphasizing the economic and social benefits of immigrants while condemning current enforcement practices as unconstitutional and counterproductive. It acknowledges the need to deport noncitizens who commit serious crimes but argues that DHS has abandoned its public safety mission, instead targeting low-level offenders and even legal immigrants. The call for federalism and local autonomy reflects broader debates about state versus federal authority in immigration enforcement.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a principled defense of immigration as a net positive for American society, backed by economic data and constitutional arguments. It effectively highlights the contradictions in current enforcement policies—where DHS targets low-level offenders and even crime victims while failing to focus on genuine public safety threats. The testimony also makes a compelling case for federalism, arguing that Congress cannot compel local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, especially when those laws are implemented in ways that violate due process and erode community trust.
However, the argument leans heavily on emotional appeals, particularly in its portrayal of DHS as a rogue agency engaging in unconstitutional mayhem. While the facts presented are verifiable, the framing risks oversimplifying complex enforcement challenges. For example, the claim that DHS has "abandoned its public safety mission" assumes a clear, singular mission, when in reality, immigration enforcement involves balancing multiple priorities, including border security, legal compliance, and humanitarian concerns. The testimony also employs a form of moral panic by suggesting that DHS actions are systematically undermining American freedoms, which could be seen as an exaggeration to provoke outrage.
The root cause of this narrative is a libertarian critique of government overreach, echoing historical tensions between federal authority and individual rights. The unstated assumption is that immigration enforcement should prioritize economic and social integration over strict legal compliance, a perspective that aligns with free-market and limited-government ideologies. The implications for human agency are significant: if DHS continues to operate without accountability, it could further alienate immigrant communities, reduce public safety cooperation, and undermine trust in federal institutions. The second-order consequences include potential economic harm, as immigrants contribute disproportionately to entrepreneurship and labor markets.
Bridge questions: What evidence would change the assessment of DHS’s enforcement priorities? How should Congress balance federal immigration laws with local autonomy? What safeguards could ensure due process without compromising public safety?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve amplifying emotional narratives about government overreach, selectively citing data to support a pro-immigration stance, and framing opponents as authoritarian. The actual content aligns with this pattern to some degree, particularly in its use of provocative language ("unconstitutional mayhem," "masked agents invade our homes"). However, the testimony is grounded in verifiable facts and constitutional principles, which mitigates concerns about manipulation. The primary risk is that the emotional framing could polarize rather than persuade, making it easier for opponents to dismiss the argument as hyperbolic.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (selective framing of DHS actions), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (shifting between broad claims of government overreach and specific constitutional violations).
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits strong human signals, including passionate tone, idiosyncratic phrasing, and specific, contextual examples. No significant indicators of synthetic origin were detected.