Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
Trouble for U.S. in Southeast Asia
S
ince before the formation of
the post-World War II order,
the United States has made
notable efforts to create a network
of allies and support throughout
Asia. One of the earliest American
partners was the Philippines, and
the relationship between the two
countries spans back to 1898. In
the aftermath of the Spanish-
American War, Spain ceded the
rights to its former colonies —
which included the Philippines —
to the U.S.
While
the
land
remained
an
American
territory
and
protectorate
for
nearly
50
years,
formal
diplomatic
ties
between the newly-independent
Philippines and the U.S. began
in 1946. Since then, the two
nations have become frequent
collaborators in defense, trade and
other realms. The U.S. has also
incurred heavy human costs in its
commitment to the island nation,
as the capital city of Manila houses
the largest U.S. military cemetery
of any other country. The histories
of these countries are strongly
intertwined, and their alliance has
been mutually beneficial.
These days, the status quo
of
U.S.-Philippines
relations
appears to be in danger. Last
week, Filipino President Rodrigo
Duterte announced his decision
to annul the 1998 Visiting Forces
Agreement. This deal laid out
the terms of U.S.-Filipino armed
forces
cooperation
and
the
stationing of American troops in
the Philippines, a fundamental
aspect of the partnership. Duterte
spoke of his belief that his country
“cannot forever rely on other
countries for the defense of the
state.” The Filipino leader appears
firm in his conviction and has
given no indication of being open
to negotiations.
This tension has been building
over the past few years. The
Duterte
administration
has
frequently
clashed
with
U.S.
leadership since his election four
years ago. Among the strongest
sticking points between the two
countries has been Duterte’s policy
toward drug crime in his country.
He infamously compared himself
to Adolf Hitler and implied he
would perpetrate genocide against
drug users and dealers. Such
disturbing language and resulting
policies have resulted in Duterte’s
alienation of the U.S., and the
American response has been
strong. This latest point of conflict
came about after U.S. officials
cancelled the visa of Philippine
Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, who
helped engineer Duterte’s violent
policies against drug offenders.
In response, Duterte threatened,
then completed his country’s exit
from the agreement, much to the
chagrin of high-ranking Filipino
foreign policy officials.
The U.S. acted justly when
it chose to set an example that
figures like Dela Rosa will not
be given special consideration
and rights to visit the country.
Duterte’s
demagogic
rule
in
Manila has set a negative tone
in relations with the U.S and
produced
horrifying
policies.
Yet this case of erosion of the
American-Filipino
relationship
also serves as a warning for
those concerned about American
interests in Southeast Asia.
Throughout his time in office,
Duterte’s Philippines has shown
a pivot toward embracing China
and moving away from American
influence. One example of such
behavior is the Filipino president’s
willingness to collaborate with
Chinese President Xi Jinping on
an oil and gas project in the South
China Sea, even with the key
term of the agreement being that
the Philippines would no longer
pursue its claims against China
for its activities in the area that
undermine Philippine sovereignty.
Such a development should
be quite frightening to those
who value a vibrant network of
American international relations.
Though Duterte’s foreign policy
is mainly a break from that of his
predecessors, it is concerning
that one of America’s longest-
tenured allies in Asia is quickly
gravitating toward China’s sphere
of influence at the expense of the
U.S. If the Philippines can fall
into President Xi’s hands, what
is to stop other Southeast Asian
countries from being lost as well?
China’s meteoric rise to the upper
echelon of the world’s economies
has paid off in attracting new
partners around the world. If it can
successfully present itself to states
in the region as an alternative to
American partnership, the U.S.
will be worse off in the future.
Though
the
current
state
of affairs might represent a
problematic emerging pattern,
it is important to remember
that Rodrigo Duterte is just one
man. It is possible, especially
given the opinions carried by the
Filipino people toward China,
that his time at the premiership
of
the
Philippines
will
end
shortly. Perhaps other Southeast
Asian nations will look to the
Philippines as an example of how
not to approach a relationship
with their American partners.
Regardless,
the
U.S.
must
continue to invest its time, capital
and energy in its relationships
with nations around the globe,
but particularly in Southeast Asia.
At a time when China’s brand of
authoritarian rule appears to be
a fashionable model for foreign
governments,
America
should
continue to not only lead by
example, but serve as an active
and engaged partner for its friends
worldwide. As for the Philippines
specifically, the U.S. should not
bend the knee to Duterte. It
should remain willing and eager
to continue building strong ties
when a new leader steps into the
president’s office in Manila.
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN
Judge, jury and — too often — the executioner
W
hen cousins Walter and
Gaspar came to the
United States fleeing
gang violence and widespread
corruption in El Salvador, their fate
was a sadly familiar one for many
applying for asylum. The two men’s
applications were denied and they
were deported back to El Salvador.
Once they were back home, Walter
and Gaspar were taken from their
beds and beaten for days by local
police.
Walter and Gaspar were lucky.
After
experiencing
extensive
physical
and
psychological
abuse in police custody, they
were eventually released. But
not everyone escapes dangerous
police interrogations alive. A week
ago, rights advocacy organization
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
released a report detailing the
violence that many unsuccessful
asylum applicants — much like
Walter and Gaspar — often face
when they are forced to return to
their respective home countries
after being denied asylum.
No one really monitors what
happens when denied applicants
are sent back to El Salvador, and
HRW’s recent report aims to help
“fill that gap.” When an immigrant
applies for asylum, their case will be
reviewed in front of an immigration
judge. That one individual controls
the
difference
between
life
and death for asylees. In many
instances of asylum application
denial, a judge will rule that the
applicant cannot demonstrate they
had a credible and well-founded
fear of persecution or harm in their
home country or that the applicant
would be a significant national
security risk to the U.S. Several of
the cases in the HRW report call
into question whether many of
the deportations that result from
denied applications are to blame for
the deaths and injuries of asylum
applicants upon returning to their
countries of origin.
President Donald Trump has
made his hardline stance on
immigration a cornerstone of his
political agenda as well as a crucial
rallying cry for his base. While the
president has attracted attention
for the crude language he has used
to describe immigrants, Trump
himself directly regulates and
oversees little of U.S. immigration
policy.
Instead,
administrative
agencies within the executive
branch, such as the Department
of Justice, carry out much of the
political changes and intricacies
of the legal immigration process.
Still, Trump’s widely-discussed
executive
orders
that
have
attempted to restrict immigration
flows — such as announcing a travel
ban on predominantly Muslim
countries or ending temporary
protected status for Salvadorans,
much to the protest of senior agency
officials at the Department of State
who strongly advised against the
decision — are only the tip of the
immigration iceberg.
HRW’s recent report is powerful
because it indicates some denied
applications are dismissed all too
easily. When establishing landmark
decisions,
immigration
judges
should be aware of the power they
hold over vulnerable people and
consider reports like HRW’s as
evidence of the growing need for
asylum approval.
The U.S.’s current asylum policy
clearly endangers lives. Previous
immigration decisions — such as
Matter of AB-, which overturned
protections for victims of domestic
abuse or gender-based violence —
should be revisited by immigration
courts and reconsidered when used
as legal precedent in cases for those
trying to apply for asylum relief.
It’s hard to grapple with the
flaws in immigration policy when
you aren’t an immigration judge
or administrative agency official.
While students at the University
of Michigan can’t individually
change the U.S.’s immigration
policy, they can certainly show up
to support a candidate who does
in the Michigan primary in March
and
the
presidential
election
in
November.
The
remaining
Democratic
candidates
have
opinions about immigration that
fall across the political spectrum,
so it’s important for potential voters
to be informed about what each
of the candidates advocates for.
Joe Biden’s plan for immigration,
for example, is likely the most
conservative of the remaining
candidates, as it seeks to keep
many current statutes concerning
undocumented
immigration
in
place and does not structurally
change asylum policy. Protestors
have been quick to point that out
as well as express frustration
regarding
former
President
Barack Obama’s track record of
deportations.
Candidates
such
as
Pete
Buttigieg, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard,
D-Hawaii, Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., Tom Steyer and Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have all
stated the need for improving
asylum application reviews and
eliminating or limiting family
detention (Biden, Bloomberg and
Klobuchar did not take a stance
on asylum on either Politico’s or
The Washington Post’s poll). The
other candidates’ platforms would
certainly be small victories in the
larger fight for asylum applicants
in the U.S., but important steps
toward progress nonetheless.
Healthy equality is not equity
JENNY GURUNG | COLUMN
A
ccording to Healthline,
27.5 million people did not
have health insurance in
2019, and about half of uninsured
adults cited high cost of coverage as
the reason for remaining uninsured.
One of the main barriers to health
care is the expense of the programs.
High
premiums,
deductibles,
copays
and
coinsurance
of
insurance
plans
are
a
major
issue, especially given that most
individuals in the U.S. have private
insurance. According to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention,
most uninsured adults came from
low-income backgrounds. Among
adults, 27.4 percent of those who
were poor, 25.1 percent of those who
were near-poor and 8.3 percent of
those who were not poor lacked
health insurance coverage in 2018.
(“Persons categorized as ‘poor’
have a ratio less than 1.0 (i.e., their
family income is below the poverty
threshold); ‘near poor’ persons have
incomes of 100% to less than 200%
of the poverty threshold; and ‘not
poor’ persons have incomes that
are 200% of the poverty threshold
or greater.”) The result of this:
Americans with higher income
have better health outcomes than
those with low income because
they are almost always guaranteed
health care coverage.
This “disproportionate risk of
being uninsured, lacking access
to care, and experiencing worse
health outcomes” is called a
health inequality, also known as
a health disparity, which refers
to a difference in the presence
of
disease,
health
outcomes
and health care access between
different populations. A health
inequality can be an inevitable
health difference based on age or,
more notably, a higher likelihood
of low-income individuals to suffer
from chronic conditions like heart
disease and diabetes which have
an adverse effect on quality of
life. These health inequalities are
closely tied to income inequality
which is exceptional in the U.S. It
has become increasingly important
for federal and local governments
to prioritize initiatives aimed at
reducing
income-based
health
disparities, especially as income
inequality has persisted and health
care costs have increased.
In the past year, health care
has been a defining issue many
Democratic
candidates
have
campaigned on. In 2019, Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., introduced the bill
S.1129-Medicare for All, which
would automatically enroll all U.S.
residents for health insurance and
cover essential medical services.
Medicare for All is a single-payer
health care proposal that would
streamline the current multi-payer
health care system and eliminate
the private sector’s role in providing
and paying for health care.
Currently,
Medicare
is
a
government-provided
health
insurance program only available
to people aged 65 or older (and some
younger people with disabilities).
Medicare covers about half of all
health care expenses and people
often have to pay out-of-pocket
(OOP) expenses or join another
health insurance to cover the
uninsured services. These OOP
expenses include copays, premiums
and deductibles, which go back to
financing the insurance.
The new Medicare for All
bill based on Sanders’s proposal
is an expanded version of the
current program all U.S. residents
would be eligible for. It would
essentially eliminate all private
insurance,
including
employer-
based coverage. The bill states
that private insurance can only
be “supplemental” to the program
to offer coverage for services
not covered under it. This would
be a huge change to the current
health care system, where over
68.9 percent of adults have private
insurance.
Furthermore,
this
current system costs significantly
more than public health insurance.
There are a number of defining
health
insurance
proposals
made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., a cosponsor of Sanders’s
bill, former Vice President Joe
Biden and other candidates. Biden
has proposed the Biden Plan, which
is a public insurance program
that would reshape rather than
eliminate private insurance while
increasing the scope of Obamacare
(Affordable Care Act).
Regardless of the type of
policy, providing health care to all
individuals is the first step toward
eliminating
health
disparities
in the U.S. The rhetoric, though,
shouldn’t
be
about
“insuring
more
than
an
estimated
97
percent of Americans” as Biden
says. Everyone should already
have access to health care, not
just 97 percent of us. Health is a
fundamental human right and
these policies only resolve the
first problem, lack of access to
health care. The availability of
health care to everyone should be
a given. These policies only make it
so that everyone has access to the
same level of health care, but does
not address the systemic health
inequities that have become deeply
rooted in our health care system.
Health inequities are specific
types of disparities that are
avoidable, unjust and the result
of
continued
and
persistent
health differences. When health
differences are “preventable and
unnecessary, allowing them to
persist is unjust,” writes Mariana
Arcaya, Alyssa Arcaya and S.V.
Subramanian
from
Global
Health Action. The underlying
difference between inequality
and inequity is that the latter
suggests injustices against a
vulnerable
population
group
based on race or ethnicity. Unlike
age-related health differences,
health
inequities
are
clearly
demonstrated in things such as
higher rates of infant mortality
among
Black
children
than
white children. This difference
in mortality rate is seen among
Black and white children in the
same income group as well which
suggests the underlying cause of
this inequity is “rooted in social
injustice.”
A powerful visual for health
equity is three people standing
behind a fence, each a bit shorter
than the person before him. If
you give them all an equally sized
stand, only the tallest one will be
able to see beyond the fence. The
two others still won’t be able to see
beyond the fence. Health equity
is the idea that you give each of
them the correctly sized stand that
lets them all see beyond the fence.
Healthy equality is not equity.
The current policy proposals
presented only touch upon the
underlying
causes
of
health
disparities and inequities in our
health
care
system.
Equitable
health care access involves more
than equal access to health care. It
requires the equitable distribution
of resources, finances and benefits
to those who need it. Our current
multi-payer
system
is
neither
equitable nor equal. We, as college
students and voters, need to call
upon our representatives to reassess
the distribution of both resources
and funding to fully understand
how we can redesign and shape
our current health care system to
reduce persisting health disparities
and inequities.
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu
These health
inequalities are
closely tied with
income inequality.
STANFORD
ENVIRONMENTAL
& WATER STUDIES
SUMMER PROGRAM
ewssummer.stanford.edu
June 22 - August 15, 2020
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMER SESSION ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR UNDERGRADUATE & GRADUATE STUDENTS
COURSEWORK • RESEARCH • SCHOLARS PROGRAM
SMART
INNOVATION
DESIGN
THINKING
PROBLEM
SOLVING
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu
4 — Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com