House GOP kicks off a new year of dysfunction with another impeachment

Trust the Republican House to make a difficult situation exponentially worse. Not content with establishing a new record of dysfunction and ineffectiveness in the first session of the 118th Congress, they’re kicking off the second year with another waste of precious time: a second baseless impeachment, this time against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. It’s basically the first thing on their agenda when they return to work next week, with the first hearing scheduled for Jan. 10.

Never mind that the first deadline for a partial government shutdown is Jan. 19, and the House has made zero progress in meeting it. Instead, Republican leadership has chosen to start impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas for his “decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” according to Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green of Tennessee.

Mayorkas’ team at DHS slapped back. “The House majority is wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise that has been rejected by members of both parties and already failed on a bipartisan vote,” spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement.

The White House was equally scathing. “Actions speak louder than words,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement. “House Republicans’ anti-border security record is defined by attempting to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel, opposing President Biden’s record-breaking border security funding, and refusing to take up the President’s supplemental funding request.”

“After voting in 2023 to eliminate over 2,000 Border Patrol agents and erode our capacity to seize fentanyl earlier in 2023, House Republicans left Washington in mid-December even as President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate remained to forge ahead on a bipartisan agreement,” Bates said.

That Senate effort—which aims to find a compromise on immigration that will get enough Republican votes to allow aid to Ukraine to continue—is ongoing, though its success is far from certain since the House GOP is working to poison it. Senate Republicans will point to the House GOP’s opposition to justify their refusal to support any agreement. To that end, House Speaker Mike Johnson is spearheading another stunt, leading a delegation of about 60 Republican House members to visit a border facility near Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday.

Johnson’s trip is fueling the hard-line stance on immigration, but he’s also painting himself into a corner with the House extremists. Catering to the hard right on immigration is extremely unlikely to help him avert a government shutdown—since a government shutdown is what the Freedom Caucus wants.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a prominent member of the caucus, made that clear enough in a letter Tuesday, writing that he was skipping this trip to the border because it is not enough. "Our people—law enforcement, ranchers, local leaders—are tired of meetings, speeches, and press conferences,” he said, adding that the House should be “withholding funding for the vast majority of the federal government until it performs its basic duty to defend the borders of a supposedly sovereign nation."

The more Johnson bends to extremists on immigration, the more emboldened they will be to force a shutdown over the issue. He’s setting himself up for failure, for the very same trap that every Republican speaker since John Boehner has fallen into. Either Johnson bucks the Freedom Caucus and risks being ousted like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, or he allows a disastrous shutdown.

Meanwhile, there’s reality: In the past week, illegal border crossings have decreased. But reality isn’t likely to make any difference to Republicans; it rarely does.

RELATED STORIES:

Speaker Mike Johnson faces same old GOP dysfunction in the new year

It's official: GOP House did a whole lot of nothing this year

White House engages on Ukraine/immigration stalemate

Campaign Action

GOP congresswoman defends Trump’s Nazi talking points

Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York went on CNN Monday evening to defend Donald Trump’s recent fascist rhetoric. Specifically, Trump’s transparent use of Nazi references to racial impurity, saying things like immigration is “poisoning the blood of our country.” 

Host Abby Phillip attempted to get Malliotakis to admit that, at the very least, Trump’s repeated use of authoritarian rhetoric was worrying, reminding her that Malliotakis’ own origin story includes being the daughter of a Cuban refugee. Malliotakis didn’t see it that way:

Abby Phillip: Let's talk for a second here about the fact that Trump continuously, repeatedly uses this rhetoric that now maybe you could say the first time he didn't know the references, the parallels to authoritarians—he knows now. Why does he keep saying it over and over again?

Nicole Malliotakis: Well, look, I just think he's trying to bring attention to the issue.

Is there anyone more narrow-minded and group-thinky than a Republican lawmaker? In Malliotakis’ defense, she has maintained a rather stolid hypocrisy when it comes to immigration policy. Her 2022 campaign for the 11th District of New York consisted of attacking asylum-seekers.

What makes this an extra-special kind of hypocrisy is that Malliotakis is willing to defend the heinous rhetoric of Trump, a man she herself claimed in 2017 to have regretted voting for. Of course, that was when she was running for mayor of New York City, a place where Trump isn’t well liked.

Campaign Action

Zelenskyy visit highlights fraught week in Congress

If Congress sticks to its established schedule, this will be the last work week for the year, and it will be a consequential one. That’s particularly true for Ukraine, which is why President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been forced to drop everything and come to Washington, D.C., to plead for his country.

Zelenskyy will be in D.C. Tuesday, meeting with President Joe Biden, senators, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced the visit Sunday, saying the president’s meeting is intended to “underscore the United States’ unshakeable commitment to supporting the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s brutal invasion.”

“As Russia ramps up its missile and drone strikes against Ukraine, the leaders will discuss Ukraine’s urgent needs and the vital importance of the United States’ continued support at this critical moment,” Jean-Pierre’s statement concluded.

For Republicans, that message is likely to fall on deaf ears. CNN cites Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who tweeted Sunday, “America has sent enough money to Ukraine. We should tell Zelensky to seek peace.” Seeking peace means Russian occupation of Ukraine, and Republicans making that argument damn well know it.

Speaker Johnson might be too preoccupied with moving the House toward a specious and utterly baseless impeachment to be swayed by Zelenskyy. Pursuing a formal impeachment inquiry is the last thing the House should be doing, especially this week, but it’s sitting there as a possibility on Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s calendar, with the Rules Committee expected to consider the resolution to authorize the impeachment on Tuesday.

Senate negotiators continue to work on Republicans’ extortion demands: Ukraine aid in return for permanent and extreme immigration measures. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a lead Democratic negotiator, said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he expects the White House to become more engaged but that “Republicans have to be reasonable” and relent to allow Ukraine aid in the next few weeks. “We're not going to solve the entire problem of immigration" by the end of the year, he said.

Zelenskyy’s intervention could help convince enough Republicans to fund his country’s war effort. And while that’s happening, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and a group of fellow Democrats are demonstrating their ongoing commitment to real immigration reform. Over the weekend, they traveled to Guatemala to focus on the root causes of the surge in migration. “We cannot ignore the reality of the numbers and where they’re coming from,” Durbin told Punchbowl News. “We didn’t design the border policies for the volume of this nature. And we have to find a way, as painful as it may be, to bring some order.”

The other primary business slated for the week is finally passing the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that sets the priorities and allocates the eventual appropriations for defense. As of now, the Senate is slated to pass it as soon as Wednesday and leave on Thursday for the holiday recess. That’s subject to change if something breaks on the Ukraine/immigration front. The House is likely to take up the NDAA under suspension of the rules, which would require a two-thirds majority vote, a move that would thwart the Freedom Caucus—which is officially opposed to it—from blocking it from reaching the floor under regular order.

However this week turns out, it’s setting Congress up for a very rough and contentious few weeks before the first government funding deadline of Jan. 19.

RELATED STORIES:

GOP impeachment resolution: A circus without substance

Senate Republicans hand Putin a propaganda victory

Ukraine Update: Trump, Putin prevail with Republican senators

White House warns of impending crisis in Ukraine assistance funding

Campaign Action

Markos and Kerry give their thoughts on what the country is facing in 2024. The Republican Party is running on losing issues like abortion and repealing the ACA—with no explanation of what they plan on replacing it with. Trump has a lot of criming to atone for, and the Republican platform remains set on destroying democracy.

On Thanksgiving, I remember my Jewish ancestors who left Europe and am thankful America took them in

“I’ve got something I’d like to say.” That’s what I usually offer up as a preamble as I try to get the attention of my kids and other family members gathered around the Thanksgiving table. It takes a couple of attempts, but once we’re all on the same page I offer words of thanks for my ancestors. I talk about how brave they must have been to leave the communities of their birth, which were at least familiar to them despite the hardship, discrimination, and all-too-common violence they faced. They came to a land where they didn’t speak the language, didn’t know the culture, and, in many cases, didn’t know a soul.

In this offering, I mention the family names of the people who came and the places they came from. We’ve done quite a bit of genealogical research on my side and my wife’s side of the family, and we’re lucky to have as much information as we do. My goal is to give my kids a sense of who their ancestors were and what they went through to give us a chance to have the life we do here in America. One branch of my father’s family came from Vilnius, now the capital of Lithuania; another from Riga, Latvia’s capital; another from Minsk, the capital of Belarus; and the last from Odesa, now in Ukraine, which is a country fighting back with growing success against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s vile aggression.

Growing up, I had learned that all my father’s ancestors were “Russian.” It turns out none of them came from places that are now in that country—and let’s hope its borders don’t expand any further.

The story is similar on my mother’s side. One branch was described to me as Austrian; in fact, they came from Skole in today’s Ukraine. The other was Hungarian and came from Sighet (Elie Wiesel’s hometown) in Transylvania, now a province of Romania. During my Thanksgiving meal talk, I also thank my wife’s family, who came from Vienna, Poland, and Russia. In reality, the primary point of identification in terms of culture and identity for all these people was not the country of origin on their passport, but the fact that they were members of the Jewish people, regardless of any particular level of belief or religiosity.

In addition to being Jews, the family ancestors I’ll be acknowledging were also, of course, Americans. That’s the other part of the thanks I’ll give on the holiday: I’m thankful my ancestors had a place to go, that they could become Americans and make a life here.

The last of them got in just under the wire, arriving a few months after the first world war and only a couple of years before a series of immigration “reforms” severely limited the number of immigrants our country accepted from outside the British Isles and northwest Europe. My wife’s grandmother’s family got out of Poland in 1937, and only because the youngest child had been born here (it’s a long story). One of the oldest living “anchor babies,” I’d surmise. Very few Jews were able to find refuge here at that point and immediately afterward, during the years they needed it most.

I make sure my kids know about these restrictions on immigration as well as the fact that people coming from Asia had almost no chance to emigrate and become U.S. citizens until the early 1950s. We also talk about how although their ancestors and other Jewish immigrants certainly didn’t have it easy, they at least had opportunities that America denied to the large numbers of African Americans and American Indians who had arrived long before our family.

America didn’t treat everyone living here equally, either on paper or in practice. Certainly, as the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Patrick Lyoya, and too many others have reminded us, we’ve still got room for improvement on that front as well, to say the least, though we have come a long way thanks to those heroes who fought and bled to get us as far as we have.

Over the course of four long years, the twice-impeached former guy made the process for coming here far more difficult and far more treacherous for refugees and asylum-seekers. But thankfully, The Man Who Lost an Election and Tried to Steal It was unsuccessful in that endeavor. We now have a far more humane president, one who led the Democratic Party to its best midterm performance in six decades as well as another night of victories earlier this month. These are developments for which my family and I are deeply thankful, for many reasons.

Contrast Trump with the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society of Pennsylvania, which for more than a decade has organized a Thanksgiving event in Philadelphia specifically for immigrants. Over 100 people shared the holiday meal in 2019:

Vanessa, who declined to give her last name, says the event is exactly what she and her family needed after being under the threat of deportation.

"We couldn’t miss it today, because recently my parents were in deportation court," she said.

Vanessa says she's thankful her family can stay together just in time for the holiday.

If that organization sounds familiar, it might be because of the wonderful work it does on behalf of immigrants, or it might be because the terrorist who killed 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh specifically mentioned HIAS in a post just a few hours before committing that mass murder:

A couple of hours before opening fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue, Robert Bowers, the suspected gunman, posted on the social network Gab, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” HIAS is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and Bowers had posted about it at least once before. Two and a half weeks earlier, he had linked to a HIAS project called National Refugee Shabbat and written, “Why hello there HIAS! You like to bring in hostile invaders to dwell among us?” Another post that most likely referred to HIAS read, “Open you Eyes! It’s the filthy EVIL jews Bringing the Filthy EVIL Muslims into the Country!!”

So while I’m thankful to our country for taking in my family and so many others, I am aware that not everyone approves of America’s generosity, or the support Jews have generally shown for it. There’s another person whose family is also Jewish and from Eastern Europe who expressed a sense of gratitude that reminded me of my own: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. He did so in the context of coming forward to testify in an impeachment inquiry focused on Donald Trump. Vindman has faced antisemitism from the Tangerine Palpatine and his allies in retaliation for stepping forward and telling the truth. Here are his words, words that make me proud to share my heritage with this man:

Next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the United States as refugees. When my father was 47 years old he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the United States so that his three sons could have better, safer lives. His courageous decision inspired a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. All three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. Our collective military service is a special part of our family’s story in America.

I also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this Committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life. I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.

Dad, my sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.

Thanksgiving—at least in the form we celebrate in this country—is an American invention, a holiday about each of our relationships to America and to our fellow Americans. It means different things to different people depending on how their ancestors were treated. For me, America is my home, the only one I’ve got. It is the place that made my life and my family possible. My membership in the American people, the diverse yet singular American national community, is central to my identity. Although I don’t always agree with the policies of our government, I love America deeply.

We are living in a time when, once again, demagogues are playing on our deepest fears to argue against taking in people fleeing oppression in their homelands, just as was the case in 1939. Demagogues are also casting doubt on the loyalty of Jewish Americans who were born elsewhere, just as was the case in the Dreyfus Affair over a century ago.

Antisemitism in our country is on the rise from across the political and ideological spectrum. Although the most dangerous anti-Jewish hatred comes from the right wing, the antisemitism on college campuses since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks that killed 1,200 Israeli civilians has been impossible to ignore.

I am truly grateful for what America did for me: taking in my ancestors when they needed a place to go. I know many others will end up being far less fortunate. They are the ones we have to fight for now.

RELATED STORY: Antisemitism surges as Jewish college students across the US face hate and violent threats

This is an updated version of a piece I have posted the last few years on Thanksgiving.

Sec. of Homeland Security Mayorkas takes Josh Hawley down hard during contentious hearing

On Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. With recent events in Israel hanging over the proceedings, the annual “Threats to the Homeland” hearing focused on rising antisemitism, along with fears of domestic terrorism.

Because Sen. Josh Hawley and his GOP colleagues use all homeland security hearings to promote Republican xenophobia, he brought up a story that has preoccupied right-wing media, concerning a DHS employee who shared pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel posts on Facebook and Instagram. Hawley demanded to know if the employee in question had been fired, painting it as a pervasive issue within the department. Mayorkas explained there is a proper investigative process and that the employee in question is on administrative leave until the investigation concludes.

Ever the prick, Hawley continued hectoring Mayorkas while not allowing him to respond. Mayorkas appealed to the chair to give his uninterrupted answer, then laid Hawley out for the entire world to see.

Number one, what I found despicable is the implication that this language, tremendously odious, actually could be emblematic of the sentiments of the 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. Number one.

Number two, Senator Hawley takes an adversarial approach to me in this question, and perhaps he doesn't know my own background. Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a Holocaust survivor. Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family at the hands of the Nazis. And so I find his adversarial tone to be entirely misplaced. I find it to be disrespectful of me and my heritage, and I do not expect an apology. But I did want to say what I just articulated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayorkas has been a target of extremist conservatives for some time, who have tried to scapegoat him as part of their war on immigrants. Mayorkas, the first Latino and immigrant to helm the Department of Homeland Security, has had the gall to be ever-so-slightly more humane in his treatment of asylum-seekers than the previous administration, and as a result has received a lot of right-wing hatred and racism.

Campaign Action

House Freedom Caucus is ready to force a government shutdown

The House Freedom Caucus has set the stage for a government shutdown, issuing a list of demands on Monday that they know will never be met. They are thereby setting up a test of wills between themselves and basically everyone else in the House and Senate, starting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Congress will need to pass a temporary funding bill to keep the government open when current funding ends on Sept. 30, and the Freedom Caucus is insisting it will not back a clean continuing resolution. Even a short-term bill, they insist, would need to include their far-right demands.

Freedom Caucus members are opposing any bill that “continues Democrats’ bloated COVID-era spending,” which is to say they’d oppose a short-term spending bill that didn’t make cuts right off the bat because they didn’t like the last government spending bill to pass. Additionally, they say, they won’t support any spending bill unless it includes the hateful immigration bill House Republicans said was a “first week” priority, but only managed to pass in May. They are vowing to oppose any bill that doesn’t “[a]ddress the unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department and FBI to focus them on prosecuting real criminals instead of conducting political witch hunts and targeting law-abiding citizens” and “[e]nd the Left’s cancerous woke policies in the Pentagon undermining our military’s core warfighting mission.”

So first off they want a rollback to pre-pandemic spending levels, plus a bill that it took months for the House to pass as a stand-alone and that stands no chance in the Senate. But as unlikely as that is, at least it’s a concrete ask. From there, it gets murkier. How is a spending bill supposed to “address the unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department and FBI”? Presumably cutting off the special counsel’s investigation into Donald Trump, but this is a demand that could cover a lot of ground, some of which the different members of the Freedom Caucus probably don’t even agree on. Finally, they are demanding a legislative ban on various military policies they don’t like, presumably starting with the military’s policy of paying for service members and their families to travel for medical care, including abortion, and maybe policies allowing trans service members to serve openly in the military. But again, railing against “cancerous woke policies” is pretty vague language, especially considering that these days “woke” means anything a Republican doesn’t like. In some Republican hands, “End the Left’s cancerous woke policies” could mean resegregating the military.

Campaign Action

In translation, the Freedom Caucus is saying that it wants a government shutdown because they know that these demands will never be met. The only way to keep the government open will be for McCarthy to rely on Democratic votes to get a clean continuing resolution and, ultimately, a funding bill through the House. The Freedom Caucus is banking—with good reason—on McCarthy being unwilling to do that. But just in case this is the moment McCarthy finds a spine, the Freedom Caucus said it would “oppose any attempt by Washington to revert to its old playbook of using a series of short-term funding extensions designed to push Congress up against a December deadline to force the passage of yet another monstrous, budget busting, pork filled, lobbyist handout omnibus spending bill at year’s end and we will use every procedural tool necessary to prevent that outcome.” In other words, if you try to pass this without us, we will do whatever it takes to block it from getting a vote.

It’s not clear that the Freedom Caucus demands could get through the House with its very narrow Republican control. They definitely can’t get through the Senate. So when the Freedom Caucus says that its support is contingent on getting all of their demands and that its members will do whatever possible to block a House vote on a bill they don’t like, they’re saying they want a shutdown. Let’s be very, very clear about that as the possibility of a government shutdown looms next month: It’s not both sides. It’s House Republicans.

American political parties might often seem stuck in their ways, but they can and in fact do change positions often. Joining us on this week's episode of "The Downballot" is political scientist David Karol, who tells us how and why both the Democratic and Republican parties have adjusted their views on a wide range of issues over the years. Karol offers three different models for how these transformations happen—and explains why voters often stick with their parties even after these shifts. He concludes by offering tips to activists seeking to push their parties when they're not changing fast enough.

Watch live: Mayorkas testifies before House panel on border security, immigration

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, just one day after a federal court struck down a Biden administration policy restricting migrants’ access to asylum.

The rule required migrants to first seek and be denied asylum in a country they passed through along their way to the U.S. and also blocked asylum seekers from seeking protection after crossing between ports of entry -- a practice protected under U.S. asylum law.

Mayorkas has been the focus of broad GOP criticism, including calls for impeachment, over the large numbers of migrants who have attempted to enter the U.S. since Biden took office.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Gaetz introduces legislation to end ‘unqualified’ birthright citizenship  

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill Tuesday that would end “unqualified” birthright citizenship for children whose parents are not themselves U.S. citizens.

The legislation, titled the “End Birthright Citizenship Fraud Act of 2023,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act “to reflect the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause,” according to a statement on the measure

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  

The amendment was passed in 1866, shortly after the Civil War, to ensure citizenship and equal rights for formerly enslaved people.

The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the idea the 14th Amendment applies to children regardless of their parents’ immigration status.  

Birthright citizenship has become a favored target of hard-line conservatives. Former President Trump, who toyed with moving against it during his time in office, has pledged to end it on his first day in office if he returns to the White House, though experts say a president would lack that legal authority on their own.


More from The Hill


If passed, Gaetz’s legislation would deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens, while “excluding aliens lawfully admitted as refugees or permanent residents or performing active services in the U.S. Armed Forces.” 

The bill claims birthright citizenship has "enabled an entire black market," citing estimates of 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually, and "hundreds of thousands more" born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, "many of whom have misrepresented the purpose of their trip to avoid scrutiny."

It is not clear if the removal of birthright citizenship can happen through legislation. 

“Birthright citizenship has been grossly misapplied for decades, recently becoming a loophole for illegal aliens to fraudulently abuse our immigration system,” Gaetz said in a statement, adding that his bill shows “American citizenship is a privilege — not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens."

The Florida Republican, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill will “preserve the sanctity of American citizenship” and ensure citizenship is something that is “earned” from legal migration to the U.S.  

The bill comes as the Judiciary Committee is slated to question Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday regarding the agency’s operations and immigration in particular.  

Democrats border report seeks to undercut argument for Mayorkas impeachment

House Democrats on Friday released a report that includes segments of interviews over the last three months with border patrol sector chiefs they say undermine Republican arguments there is a crisis at the border.

The report is an effort to undercut a potential GOP impeachment inquiry against Homeland Security Secretary Alejando Mayorkas, and to counter narratives pushed by GOP leaders, who responded that Democrats had “cherry-picked” information.

“Democratic Committee staff is providing this memorandum to share the perspectives of Chief Patrol Agents which Republicans have chosen to ignore because they contradict the false and misleading claims promoted in order to justify efforts to impeach Secretary Mayorkas,” Democrats from both the House Oversight Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee concluded in the report.

“During their transcribed interviews, the Chief Patrol Agents presented assessments of border security unequivocally contrary to this Republican narrative. Chief Patrol Agents disagreed that a crisis currently exists at the southwest border and, in their own words, described their operations to obtain border security as successful.”

In one section of the report, Democrats take aim on GOP claims that Mayorkas is “intentionally” seeking disruption at the border, with staff asking multiple agents if they had ever been instructed by the secretary to stop securing the border, a question that garnered repeated nos.

Democrats said agents have “never received orders or directives to cease operations to secure the southwest border, and policies implemented have remained consistent with the law enforcement duties of U.S. Border Patrol agents.”

The memo also reviews other policy decisions made by the Biden administration, including the rescission of Title 42, which has led to a decline in figures at the border. 

Republicans have been critical of the change in procedure, which reverts back to processing under Title 8, which includes consequences for improperly crossing the border.

Officers interviewed by the committee discussed the process for checking the background of those apprehended, something Democrats said countered Republican assertions that terrorists or those with criminal records could enter the country.

“Each Chief Patrol Agent explained that U.S. Border Patrol continues to screen individuals it apprehends for criminal backgrounds or suspected ties to terrorist organizations and processed accordingly. In particular, the Chief Patrol Agents made clear that biometric data from apprehended individuals is screened against American law enforcement databases and, in some instances, even information from foreign governments,” Democrats wrote.

“Apprehended individuals who are found to possess a criminal history are not unilaterally released into the United States without diligent consultation with other law enforcement agencies.”

Agents interviewed also praised the rollout of staff designated to help with processing migrants, something they say has aided in getting officers into the field.

A GOP border bill this year barred funding for any such processing staff.

“They’re processing individuals, helping to not only do that, but they might be remote processing, things of that nature, to help us make sure that we’re having the data input that we need, reduces the amount of agents that are needed in our processing areas,” Big Bend Sector Chief Patrol Agent Sean McGoffin told the committees in April.

“And I think we’ve been very successful with that. We’re currently about—roughly 16 percent of our agents are actually processing as a whole. So that really helps our morale.” 

Republicans responded by releasing different portions of the interviews, including segments that stressed the need for consequences for those who cross the border, something that has been aided by the return of Title 8.

They also included segments with agents describing current levels of migration at historic highs.

“Today’s Democrat memorandum manipulates the facts contained in over 850 pages of testimony from Chief Patrol Agents stationed along the border to cover up the Biden border crisis,” House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Homeland Security Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in a statement.

“In reality, Chief Patrol Agents have detailed to our committees the historically high levels of illegal border crossings, migrant deaths, rescues of migrants put in peril by cartel smuggling organizations, gotaways, and assaults against our heroic Border Patrol agents.”

GOP’s ‘dereliction of duty’ impeachment argument gets skeptical reviews 

Republicans eager to impeach a Biden administration official have rallied around a new phrase to justify the rarely used move, accusing President Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of “dereliction of duty.” 

The term, borrowed from the military, allows a court martial to punish service members who fail to obey orders or carry out their duties. 

But experts say the GOP’s basis for removing either man from office is an odd fit for impeachment, which requires demonstrating high crimes or misdemeanors. 

“It sounds quasi-official — it has a sort of military ring to it. But it's not as though high crimes and misdemeanors and dereliction of duty go together. … It's not traditionally one of the impeachment concepts that you would find in the panoply of presidential mistakes,” said Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in national security law and democratic governance.  

“They're looking for a phrase that will kind of draw people in because it sounds semi-official, but will not actually require them to say something true and correct, like, ‘The President has actually done such and such,’” she added. 

The impeachment resolution for Biden introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) accuses Biden of dereliction of duty and abuses of power in connection with how he has handled the border. 

“Since his first day in office, President Biden has trampled on the Constitution through his dereliction of duty under Article 2, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, he has lawlessly ignored them,” Boebert said on the House floor this month before Republicans voted to refer the measure to committee.  

Each of the four impeachment resolutions targeting Mayorkas similarly accuses him of violating his oath of office by failing to enforce immigration laws. 

The House Homeland Security Committee, which has been tasked with an investigation that would be used as the basis for any impeachment effort undertaken by House Judiciary, likewise kicked off its five-step plan with a phase dedicated to reviewing dereliction of duty. 

“The blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, which states that the United States Congress passes the laws and the executive branch executes those laws, is just scratching the surface to the harm Secretary Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty has done to our country,” said Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, in a press conference earlier this month kicking off the formal investigation. 

“Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty has placed the safety of Americans’ second to his own personal agenda," Green added.

For Democrats, the GOP complaints over how the administration is applying — or failing to apply — the laws passed by Congress show the underlying dispute is a policy matter and therefore insufficient grounds for impeachment. 

“Dereliction of duty is something that they have created out of whole cloth,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as a lead counsel to Democrats in the first impeachment of former President Trump before being elected to Congress. 

“It has never been a grounds for impeachment. It is not a high crime and misdemeanor, and it is essentially arguing that they don't like the way that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have been handling their jobs, which, unfortunately for them, is the consequence of elections,” Goldman said. 

Impeachment proceedings have been used four times for a president and once for a cabinet secretary. 

There are different interpretations of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, and Finkelstein said while impeachment can be used for “bad acts that are not criminal, very often the impeachment charges could also be charged as crimes.” 

“President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas haven't violated the law. And I suspect that members of the GOP and Congress know that full well, and so they don't want to use any term that suggests that there may be a legal violation here. And so they're using this sort of made-up term that has a quasi-military frame to sound vaguely official, but it's really nothing that corresponds to what we would understand from the history of impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor as the framers would have conceived,” she said. 

The dereliction of duty argument has taken a greater focus in recent weeks amid waning numbers of people arriving at the border. Earlier this year, many in the GOP argued that Mayorkas failed to follow a law that requires perfection at the border to achieve “operational control.” 

Republicans have become more focused on arguing that Biden officials have violated immigration laws, particularly those dealing with detaining and releasing migrants that arrive at the border. 

They also see a wave of fentanyl deaths as a failure to secure the border, though the vast majority of fentanyl that enters the U.S. is believed to come through ports of entry. 

The Department of Homeland Security has argued Mayorkas has acted within his authority because the U.S. simply doesn't have the capacity to detain every person that seeks to enter the country, while parole laws allow DHS to permit some migrants to enter the U.S. while they await a determination in immigration court as to securing a more permanent legal status. The department has repeatedly encouraged Congress to take action to update immigration laws. 

The White House, meanwhile, dismissed Boebert’s resolution as “staging baseless political stunts.”  

“What you would need in order to move forward with impeachment is some finding that they have violated the law,” Goldman said. 

“So the notion that he’s violated his oath of office is just simply saying that he in their view is not following the law, but what it amounts to without any evidence — and they have none — is just a disagreement about how we're dealing with the influx of migrants into this country who are largely escaping completely devastated governments [and] catastrophic situations,” he said, adding that the Biden administration has tried to deal with that “in a humane way.” 

When asked about the legal underpinnings of dereliction of duty by The Hill, Green pointed to the statutes governing the military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

“The United States is not secure. His job is to secure the United States. He's failed. That's a dereliction of his duty,” Green said, noting the oath he took when entering West Point. 

“Mayorkas’s oath is the same, right? It's not to the geography of America. It's not to the flag. It’s to the Constitution, the idea of America and to the way the Constitution orchestrates how the government is to work.”  

The roots in the Uniform Code of Military Justice could be problematic for making a case. 

“Neither Biden nor Mayorkas are subject to the UCMJ because they’re both civilians,” Finkelstein said. “Dereliction of duty as a military term does not apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security, nor does it apply to the president.” 

Impatience, however, is growing among some in the Republican Party.  

Lawmakers have introduced 11 impeachment resolutions for various Biden administration officials in the past two months. 

“I would hope that it would be this year — and very soon,” Boebert told reporters last week.  

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who served as an impeachment manager for Trump’s first impeachment, dismissed the efforts as another example of Republicans “dragging down the institution of Congress.” 

“I am concerned that as they always do, they use a process that is properly applied as a precedent to abuse the process. But this is all about ingratiating yourself among MAGA members and Trump followers and it's disgraceful,” he said. 

“It’s consuming the time of Congress to keep going through these right-wing exercises designed to gain Trump's favor.”