Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, while testifying on Capitol Hill, blasts Democratic Senator Patty Murray for suggesting that Nielsen’s opposition to illegal immigration is part of her political philosophy, not part of long-standing US law.
Note that Senator Murray sniffs out a comment that, “I know it’s your philosophy” to which Nielson tried to respond but was rudely interrupted by Murray who then slammed her pen down on the table in frustration. This is a perfect example of the fact that the left projects their feelings onto conservatives. Isn’t it true that the left deals in “philosophy” and the right deals in the “law or truth”? We thinks so and love the facts that FINALLY a Senator has been pushed back on the fact that they ignore our laws in favor of open borders.
Reality is not what the left deals in so it goes without saying that they accept law breakers who cross over as a “humane” entry into the US instead of what it is…A CRIME!
TRANSCRIPT FROM THE EXCHANGE:
MURRAY: We obviously disagree, and let me just ask you another question because this committee gets a lot of requests for additional funds to reprogram our funds or transfer funds due to overspending and a lack of fiscal discipline in your department.
As you know, Congress, not this administration, sets your budget and you have to live within the means that we give to you, and to me far too frequently it seems a big part of DHS overspending is caused by ICE unnecessarily detaining people, like we talked about, pregnant women.
As you know, detention is really expensive, every year ICE — each year ICE detains someone, it costs taxpayers over $50,000. For comparison, by the way, that’s four times the amount the federal government spends on each child in our public schools.
So what this means is that taxpayers are now footing the bill for food, medical care, clothing and the expensive prison contracts that ICE is using for detention, like the facility that’s in my home state.
To me that’s really inexpensible (ph) because there are less expensive and more effective alternatives to detention. And in fact, according to your own budget, to use one of the alternatives to detention costs less than $1,500 per year compared to that $50,000.
So while you’re asking for billions of dollars in additional funds to build the unnecessary border wall, hire more ICE and border patrol, expand detention, militarize the border, you’re asking to cut funding for alternatives to detention in your budget.
So why is the department not asking us to expand the use of alternatives to detention in order to save taxpayer money?
NIELSEN: We are looking to do both. So as you know, one of the alternatives to detention is an ankle bracelet. We do utilize those in situations where appropriate. If somebody, however, is — has broken the law, in the sense that there are multiple re-entry, or they have some other reason to be criminally prosecuted, we actually turn them over to the Marshals.
We defer them over for prosecution, in which case there is no option for an alternate to detention. So if you look at all the numbers, we are trying to find ways to do it. But I do want just say again, if you cross in between the ports of entry, if you –
MURRAY: I know what your philosophy is. I’m out of time. I just want –
NIELSEN: It’s not a philosophy. It’s a law Congress passed.
MURRAY: Well, I — I just will say to you –
NIESLEN: So she’s encourages you to go to the ports, if they need to come to seek alyssum.
MURRAY: — I believe that you (inaudible), and the use of ATD. It seems to me it’s cost payer saving, and much more humane. Thank you.