Napolitano Grilled On New Deportation Policies
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 3:26PMBy Adrianna McGinley
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the Obama administration’s new guidelines prioritizing criminal deportations during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, arguing that it makes sense economically.
Napolitano cited that each removal costs DHS between 23 and 30 thousand dollars, not including the cost to the Justice Department. She said this means DHS is only able to finance 400,000 removals per year, and with over 10 million estimated undocumented immigrants in the country, prioritization is essential.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he is concerned because ICE leaders told him the new “confusing” guidelines have caused low officer moral.
“The new standards calling on them to consider DREAM Act type issues in determining whether or not the person they detain ought to be released or not, whether they’ve got a high school diploma, whether or not they might be a witness to a crime, that these are very confusing directives and that makes it more difficult for them to act effectively to apprehend people here illegally.”
Sessions then accused Napolitano of “rolling her eyes” at the statement.
“From me as a person who worked with federal agents for years,” Sessions said. “When you hear this kind of comment and votes of no confidence, I’ve never heard of that, you should be paying real attention to them, not rolling your eyes at them.”
“I’m not rolling my eyes, what I’m suggesting is that results matter here, and priorities really matter,” Napolitano defended. “The results reflect the priorities we have set, and these are priorities that are consistent with prior administrations.”
“We could just remove anybody without any priorities, and that would be one way to do it,” Napolitano said. “Or the other way, and the better way, and probably the way you [Sen. Sessions] ran your office when you were a prosecutor, is to say we want to focus on expediting removal of those who are criminals, of those who are fugitives, of those who are repeat violators, of those who are recent entrance, meaning within five years in to the United States, and what you are now seeing is that the numbers reflect those priorities.”
Sessions also questioned reports citing a significant increase in deportations over the last few years saying, “I’m told that ICE carried over from last year 19,000 removals and they’re counting them this year, and it’s sort of a gimmick to making the removals look higher than they are.”
Napolitano denied the accusation.
“I think that what you’re referring to Senator is in the movement from FY ‘09 to FY ‘10, we made the decision that we would not count a removal until there was an actual verified departure from the country, and that had the effect of moving some removals from ‘09 in to ‘10.”
The Committee also questioned Napolitano on TSA procedures and DHS efforts to increase cyber security, as well as detainee treatment and standards of immigrant detention centers brought to light last night in a Frontline special called “Lost in Detention”.
Can The Eagle Learn From The Little Dragon?
Taiwan, a free-market, capitalist democracy like the U.S. and Britain, developed a national health plan 14 years ago that now covers 99 percent of the people in the country, citizens or not, and enjoys 70-80 percent approval ratings, according to Michael S. Chen, Ph.D., Vice President and CFO of the Bureau of National Health Insurance, here to share that experience with America.
As journalist T.R. Reid reported on Frontline in “Sick Around the World,” Taiwan was the last industrialized nation to adopt universal health care. Except us. As latecomers, they had plenty of precedent to consider. For several years, the Taiwanese government sent representatives to examine most of the world’s existing systems, then worked to consolidate best practices into a form appropriate to their own culture and economy. Dr. Chen was here to report on their system and results as the Obama administration tackles the myriad problems involved in reforming American healthcare.
“Cost is about 100 U.S. dollars, or about two percent of their income for an average family of four," Chen said. The service is mostly paid for by mandated premiums, with about 10 percent paid for by the individual, 60 percent by the employer, and the remaining 30 percent by the government. They achieve near 100 percent enrollment by sending agents out to enroll people who do not comply. Subsidies are available to ensure affordability. Union workers do not get an employer contribution, but pay 60 percent, with the remaining forty percent again from the government, according to Chen.
Any medically justifiable expense is covered, and patients may go to any doctor they choose, though doctors in high demand may have waiting lists. The system itself does not have any backup at all, he said. When individuals are flagged as having an unusually high rate of utilization, their care is examined, and their eligibility may become limited to “just two or three clinics,” Chen said.
Total spending on the National Health Service is about six percent of GDP, which is less than the budgeted seven-to-eight percent.
Publicly, doctors have complained about compensation. “Privately they like it," Chen says, "because they are guaranteed four to five percent rate increases per year. What other occupation can say that?”
As was the case for Taiwan, America would not have to re-invent the wheel, “There are so many wheels already,” Chen said, referring to the many existing systems and long experience in other industrialized democracies.
When the 20 to 30 percent of Taiwanese who disapprove do so, he said, “It’s usually because they think $100 a month is too much money. I tell them to visit America.”