House Judiciary Committee Hearing on DHS Oversight

Gentleman from Texas, former United States Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Johnson, earlier today, as you gave your testimony and responded, I think, to the first question, you said something. You said, and I'm quoting you here, it is a fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law when it comes to deporting criminal aliens. Did I hear you correctly? Yes, sir. Okay. And in fairness, the Department, you know, clearly is deporting some folks. But I'd hope that you'd agree with me that what is not a fiction is that this administration has been attempting to change the law when it comes to deporting criminal aliens, a fact reflected by the President's executive orders back in November. I disagree. Why would you disagree with that? Because, in my judgment and in the judgment of the Department of Justice, our executive actions were within and are within our existing legal authority. I'm not talking about within the authority. I'm asking about changing the law here. Well, if it's in your legal authority to act, you're not by definition changing the law. Well, let me ask you about that then. You do agree with me that the President's executive orders in November attempts to allow executive amnesty to 4 to 5 million illegal aliens. You'd agree with that? Not the way you've characterized it, no. All right, then how would you characterize it? One of the executive actions I signed was to create a program by which we can offer deferred action on a case-by-case basis to those who come forward and who meet certain criteria and who, in the judgment of the agency, should be given deferred action. Which could result in amnesty to up to 4 to 5 million folks here illegally. No, I don't agree with that. That's not my definition of amnesty. Okay. Well, you've gone on record regardless of saying that you think the President's actions in that regard, that he acted constitutionally. Yes, sir. All right. And I've gone on record as saying I don't think that he has acted constitutionally. And right now a federal judge in a court of appeals in the Fifth Circuit has agreed with me that the President's request to lift that stay and to proceed to take those actions shouldn't be allowed. But you've been asked today and talked a lot today about the issue of prosecutorial discretion, and we're both former prosecutors. So I'd like to ask you about something that you said previously in a hearing last year. You said, and I'm quoting, there comes a point when something amounts to a wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly enacted constitutional law that is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion, end quote. Does that sound like something you said? It sounds like me. Okay. And do you believe that? I still do. Okay. So I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask you anyway. Do you think that DHS has already crossed that line by suspending the law for almost 5 million folks that are here illegally? Well, again, I would not characterize our executive actions that way, and I would refer you to the opinion of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issued in November in terms of where that line exists. I thought it was a pretty thoughtful discussion. Okay. But, again, you don't think that wherever you think that line is, you don't think DHS has crossed it at this point? No, sir. Okay. So that begs the question. I know that there are people who disagree with me, but no. Sure. And so that begs the question for me, what would it take, in your opinion, for DHS to cross that line? Because I think there's every possibility that this president will attempt to move this line again. And so if this president were to seek to grant deferred action to, say, all 11 or 12 million unlawful aliens in this country, I'd like to hear you on the record on whether or not you think that would cross this line. Well, again, I'm no longer practicing law. I'm just the secretary. And so I think what you're asking me for is a legal judgment. And, again, I believe that the opinion of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel has a pretty good discussion of this exact topic. And I recall when I read it agreeing with the analysis. I don't have it with me, but I recall then agreeing with the analysis. Well, let me ask you about that. So if that analysis extends, since you had a good discussion with them, would it extend to possibly 11 or 12 million folks? Doubtful. And if it did, would you have an opinion on whether it should? Well, it depends on the circumstances, but I would say I doubt it. So when you say you doubt it, you doubt that amnesty should be granted to 11 or 12 million people? Well, if you're referring to the estimated population of undocumented in this country, a lot of those people are and should be priorities for removal. So in my judgment, someone who is a priority for removal should not receive deferred action. I see my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Secretary, I thought we were kind of getting towards the end, and then two members came up. Would you want or desire a short break, or do you want to keep marching on? I'm happy to keep going for a little while longer. Thank you for asking.