bypassing congress. he also stated earlier that this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. do you agree with that statement by the president? >> no. in fact we prioritize recent illegal migrants. we prioritize those who came here illegally after january 1, 2014, and i intend to highlight that fact wherever i go. in fact i'm going to our new detention facility in texas week after next, to highlight the fact we have expanded our depension capabilities. and i intend to go to the country of mexico to work with them. so wherever i go i intend to highlight the fact that these new reforms prioritize recent illegal illegalen -- ill tell entrants.

>> again, i just look at history. i look had 60,000 children unaccompanied, crossing my border in texas through the rio grand valley sector. as a result of doca. you can't deny that the traffickers are going to message this action, and exploit it. i have had high-level people in the state department tell me this. they are worried about this being taken down to the central american countries, and exploited, and we're going to see a surge in illegal immigration. it is going to happen, and this department needs to be ready for that to protect the nation from it. because it's coming in my judgment there's no question about it. the last question is on fraud. 20% of doca applications denied as fraudulent. we saw that after 1996, the

world trade center bomber, one of them had fraudulent documentation. what are you going to do to verify that these people are not fraudulently entering the country, including what could be security threats to the country? >> congressman that is something that i too am concerned about. fraudulent applications have the potential to undermine the whole process, and so in the implementation, in the plans for the implementation, i want to be sure that we take a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications and fraudulent misuse of the program. that's a priority of mine. >> well, we look forward to working with you on that. with that the chair recognizes the ranking member for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there are

striking similarities between president obama's executive action, and those similar actions taken by president reagan and -- >> you are watching al jazeera america's continuing coverage of the house homeland security committees hearings on the immigration debate. we are going to take a brief break. you are watching al jazeera america. ♪

hello, i'm del walters in new york. we want to take you back to washington, d.c. where the homeland security hearings are underway. they are looking into the participate's controversial immigration policies that we announced last month. we take you back to washington.

>> -- congress has not moved forward, and that's where president reagan and president bush did pursue the route, because of the inaction of congress. so while there are differences of opinion, i don't think there is a question that we have not done our job as members of congress and the problem gets worse. those 11 million people who were here, we have to address. another issue that i'm concerned about, mr. secretary, the department's unity of effort. how will the southern border, and the campaign address the challenges around that? >> the southern border campaign strategy that we're developing is an initiative to bring to bear all of the department's refor reforce -- resources in a particularly area of the

country. ice, cis, coast guard, we are too stove piped, and we need to bring a more comprehensive strategic at proep -- approach to it. we need joint task forces, east to focus on maritime border security in the southeast, focus on border security in the southwest, and i expect to announce the new leaders of those task forces very soon, and we're developing a time line for getting this done. i issued as part of these various directives here, directive devoted towards the southern border campaign strategy, and set forth what the goals and lines of effort are to be. as you know, i think we have received a lot of bipartisan support for this effort, and i intend to move forward with it.

>> comment has been made about the number of undocumented children coming in recent years. your department requested supplemental funding to address the needs to -- to work with that. congress did not give you the money. can now continue to maintain the level of -- of support to address that issue if congress continues to refuse to give you the money necessary to do that job? >> it will be very difficult. we have as part of our fy '15 budget request an request for an additional $750 million. most of that will go to expanded

detention capability and resources. we set that up in response to the spike in illegal migration last summer, and we want to maintain that and add to it, and so i referred to the new detention facility in texas a moment ago. that is a capacity for up to 2400 spaces. we need to pay for that. but it's a vital aspect of our southern border security, in my view, and frankly i'm disappointed that congress has not supported us in that vital border security effort, and i hope that congress will act to fund that and to fund the expanded flights, the repate ration that we have developed since last summer. we need to pay for these things. and i know every member of this committee wants to support boarder security. so i'm asking that congress act

on my behalf to we can pay for it. >> chair recognizes mr. smith. >> thank you. what do you project to be the number of people coming across the border illegally this year? >> the number of people crossing the border illegally this year? >> yes. >> fy '14 i believe that total apprehensions, which are on indication of total attempts to cross the border illegally, is about 479, 477,000. >> and how many will success without being apprehended, would you guess? >> there is a calculation that is something in excess of that number. you add as i'm sure you know, apprehensions, plus turn backs, plus what we call got aways, and you get an estimate for total

illegal migration, i believe. but i would be happy to provide this number to you. but i believe it's some -- some percentage in excess of the 477, 479,000. >> that's what i have heard over half a million will success in doing into the united states illegally this year. if you were to succeed in achieving your goal of operational control of the border, what would you like to get that number down to? >> very clearly, sir, i would like to see that number come down. in fy 2000 -- >> right. >> we had 1.6 million. >> if i may interrupt you for a minute, what are your metrics in determining whether the border is secure or not? >> the border patrol has matrix, and i have asked that they improve upon that. i recently issued a director to better -- >> are there any metrics -- >> that is a work in progress

sir. >> you don't have the metrics today to determine whether the border is secure? >> the border patrol does have metrics, which i believe i have -- shared with various members of this committee. i have asked that they refine that, and they are in the process of doing that. >> okay. so, again, i don't think we have the metrics that we need to determine whether the border is secure or not. let me read a sentence from page 3 of your statement today. our executive actions emphasize that those who come here illegally will be sent book unless they qualify for some form of hue -- humanitarian relief from our law. is it true that the department is releasing illegal immigrants now from ice custody, instead of sending them home?

>> i believe that we have a number of those who are released on bond if i understand your question through a directive i recently asked ice to have a higher level approval of authority for when that happens. >> again, to put that in simple language, ice is releasing individuals who are in the country illegally, which is contrary to your statement that they would be sent home. and it also seems to me, contradicting your statement is the fact that very few individuals who have entered the country illegally who have not in your terms committed other serious crimes are going to be sent home. it is going to be a very, very small fraction. it may be 1%. so i don't think your statement is true to say that those who come here illegally will be sent back. >> let me say two things, sir. during the summer we

dramatically reduced the repate ration time for adults. and we have built added detention space for family units, which i'm hoping this congress will support. >> that's nice but that's not answering my question. once again you are not going to be sending people back home just because they are in the country illegally, and ice is already releasing individuals who could be returned home, but are not returned home, and you are also releasing individuals who have been convicted of crimes in the united states and putting them back out on our streets and communities. do you want to estimate how many thousands of people are being released who are criminal e aliens. do you have any idea how many it might be this year? >> the issue of release of those convicted of crimes is one that i have focused on for the last several months. so i directed to ice that there

be a higher level of authority when someone is released. and a release of somebody with a criminal record should not occur because of fiscal constraints. and we will find a way to pay for that. >> as i say, right now, you are releasing criminal aliens and individuals who should be sent home, and i don't think that should be the way our laws should be ennorsed. >> recognize the gentlemen frommifro fromming -- from texas. >> let me thank you for this hearing. this is unbyes aed fact finding. secretary again thank you for your service, and the importance of your related service in the department of defense and as well your knowledge and work with the u.s. department of justice. i frankly believe that we can clarify the president's comments

and he was in fact extremely consistent. as i understand the executive order, it does not confer immigration status, nor does it confer a pathway to citizenship is that correct? >> correct. >> in my interpretation the president's remarks over the year has been his lack of authority to confer immigration status or citizenship. my interpretation, but i think it would be documented by his words, and you are telling us today in the executive order, you nor the president has done that? >> deferred action does not grant legal status or a pathway to citizenship or a green card. >> let me move on mr. secretary to put into the record these words, a come comprehensive approach to immigration reform is long over due, and i'm confident the president, myself, and others can find common ground to take care of this issue once and for all. those were the words of speaker

boehner, which i took literally in 2012. to date this house has not placed on the floor of the house, one single immigration bill that responds to what i thought were welcoming words by the speaker. we have not had an up or down vote, and in this committee, we have worked in a competable matter, and passed an initiative, and it has never seen a day on the floor of the house. my questions and concerns would be our interpretation. president reagan signed into law a bill that many people tried to muffle their words, but they use the word amnesty. i would make the argument that president reagan saw humanitarian crisis and decided

to act. justice roberts said that presidents have a right to humanitarian relief. so let me pursue this questioning regarding the daca and the issue that this may work to cause border crosses as a result of this announcement. could you just quickly point out the doca relief deals with existing persons here in the united states, and one other aspect is to expand the time frame from two to three years. could you quickly answer that. why don't i just give you this other question so that we won't be delayed with respect to the other question. i have always thought secure communities have had a legal and political issue, and you have streamlined secure communities. let me say that my law enforcement officers have said it is problematic.

in your prioritization of terrorists and others, you have streamlined that. i would also like to indicate in your new facility that i'm very interested in dilly, texas, that it will be accommodating and with the righting kinds of resources for family and children. if you would answer those questions, mr. secretary. >> yes, ma'am. the current doca program is for those who have been here since june 2007, which is almost seven years -- over seven years. you have to have been here over seven years, come here under age 16. we revised the criteria that by rolling back the cutoff from 2007 to 2010, we removed the birthday limitation from post 1981 to any time when we have made the eligibility for the temporary period, three years instead of two years. with regard to the dilly facility that we're opening up,

i have sent my own staff, my own lawyers down there to ensure that the conditions are adequate for family units and it's somebody that i'm committed to ensuring. >> and secure communities that you have streamlined which have really rounded up mothers and fathers and people who are of no threat to the united states of america. >> i support the goal of secure communities. the goal of security communities is to get at criminals. >> absolutely. >> the program as you know was becoming legally and political controversial. mayors and governors signing laws and executive orders prohibiting their law enforcement from working with ours on this. so i want a fresh start so we can better enforce criminal safety and removing criminals. >> thank you. mr. chairman i want to say in an

article in our local newspaper, a mother who had used a nanny for a number of years who had been in this country for 13 years, dependent and many mothers are on child care, she was celebrating, not politically, democrats, republicans, the opportunity for her nanny to become in some way status to stay in this country, and to do good work and protect her children. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. rogers from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for your service and for being here. earlier you testified in front of this community when we had a bunch of younger people coming across the border illegally. and i asked you when we were talking about the reason why they wouldn't be removed within 24 hours like we do adult illegal aliens, and you made the point of says statutorily, the government is required to allow these children or younger people

to go through a hearing process, and that that had to be complied with. my inquiry to you wasn't these exgenlt circumstances? and you yesterday yes. and i said then couldn't the president write an executive order to address that. isn't it true that our current statutory law requires that these people covered under this executive order be removed from the country? >> i recall that exchange, and i recall that the particular words extraordinary circumstances could not be read as broadly as to permit voluntary departure.

that was the reading of the statute that i had at the time. i do not believe, to the extent this is your question, that that is inconsistent with anything we have done and announced week before last. >> i disagree with you. statue is very clear at present that these illegals who are in this country are to be removed once located. my next question, you talked about how the people are going to be defined under this executive order be bying here a certain number of years or the age or whatever. how do you determine that -- how they are presenting themselves is accurate? for example, if they say i have been here seven years, how do you get them to prove it? and how do you know that the way they prove it is valid? for example, they say i have been living at this address for the past seven years and here is

the pow -- pow -- power bill but it is in a different name. and they say, yes, but i rent from them. >> good question. the onus will be on them to prove they have lived here over this period. so the onus is on the immigrant to prove that they have indeed lived in this country. there will have to be some sort of documented proof that will be developed by cis. >> i think you acknowledged this is an area that will be wrot

with problems. do you think the people who are going to fall into this category are going to be able to draw medicare and social security and other public benefits? >> people who qualify for deferred action are lawfully present, but they do not have a lawful status, like lawful permanent resident or citizen. one of the virtues of accountability is you give people a work authorization and then they pay taxes on the books. part of the taxes they would pay, as i understand it, would be a deduction for social security. >> so the answer is yes. >> they might be eligible for public benefits of the type that most people would receive -- >> but medicare and social security they would? >> you would generally as i

understand it, be eligible to get back what you put in. >> participating in medicare and social security, both of which are struggling financially, to have this added burden, i think is irresponsible. you made point about being given documentation for a work permit. is that accurate? it will issue a document to an illegal saying they have a legal status of some sort? >> knows who apply for deferred action can also apply for a work authorization, which is not a green card. it's a separate form of work authorization that the secretary of homeland security has the authority to provide. >> but it will be a legal status of some sort. >> they will be considered lawfully present in the country just like the doca kids. >> do you know how expensive that will be for you?

>> well, the program will be free driven an applicant has to pay a fee. i believe we're contemplating that the fee be $460 per applicant. uscis is a fee-based organization, it pays for itself. >> great. thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. keating from massachusetts. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for having the hearing. thank you mr. secretary. the title of today's hearing is open borders, the impact of presidential amnesty on border security. let me be very direct mr. secretary. is this amnesty? >> no. no in my judgment. >> is it even functionally amnesty? >> the current situation amounts to amnesty. we want people to be accountable to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pay taxes for the three-year period of

deferred action. >> thank you mr. secretary. i have another question. does this represent a permanent solution, this executive action, in your opinion? >> no, and let me say again, i would welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this committee who i know are interested in immigration reform on both sides of the aisle. unfortunately, since i have been in office, we -- we have not had a willing partner in the house of representatives, but i continue to want to work with members of this committee and members of the house, and members of the congress on a comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. because you are correct. this is not a permanent solution, but it is in our existing legal authority to issue, to fix the broken system, and we feel that we have no choice. >> mr. secretary, general barry mcaffrey served as a witness during a border security hearing

before this committee in the lost congress. and he said that the lack of comprehensive immigration reform is a direct threat to our national security. would you comment on that, please. >> part of comprehensive immigration reform that was passed by the senate enhanced border security. more resources, more technology, more surveillance. i support and agree with that -- >> you are. waing our continuing coverage of the house committee hearing on immigration reform. that is jeh johnson, our coverage continues right after the break. stray with us. ♪

al jazeera america gives you the total news experience anytime, anywhere. more on every screen. digital, mobile, social. visit aljazeera.com. follow @ajam on twitter. and like aljazeera america on facebook for more stories, more

access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the news, go deeper and get more perspectives on every issue. al jazeera america. hello, i'm del walters in new york. you are watching our continuing coverage of the house homeland security committee hearings on immigration reform that the president eye announced in a nationwide news conference last month. libby casey is in washington, d.c. libby the battle line has been drawn for sometime. perhaps, i guess the one thing they both have in common is that they agree that the house has done nothing. >> well, that is true to some degree. now house republicans would like to do this piecemeal approach work on securing the