Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit

Posted on June 26, 2023 by The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Texas and Louisiana Friday in a lawsuit over a Biden administration policy that’s helped effectively end most deportations of foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally.

Rather than rule on the merits of the case, in United States v. Texas, the court ruled 8-1 that the states didn’t have standing, or a legal right, to challenge the policy.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the sole dissent, arguing the justices ignored “a major precedent.”

He wrote:

“The Court holds Texas lacks standing to challenge a federal policy that inflicts substantial harm on the State and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.

In order to reach this conclusion, the Court brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare – withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc. I would not blaze this unfortunate trail. I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing.”

Last June, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, arguing they would incur costs due to the federal government’s failure to comply with federal immigration law and deportation policies. The judge ruled the states had standing to sue because of these costs. He also vacated the deportation policy, arguing it was unlawful.

The Biden administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which again handed a victory to the states by declining to stay the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert. Last fall, the court heard oral arguments and on Friday ruled the states lacked Article III standing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a different opinion saying the states didn’t have standing for a different reason than the one Kavanaugh gave. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote her own concurring opinion and was joined by Gorsuch.

At issue is a final memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, drastically altering deportation policies, including limiting issuing detainer requests for dangerous criminal aliens.

In Mayorkas’ final September 2021 memorandum, he also challenged federal law established by Congress that illegal entry is a crime in itself and a deportable offense. The policy states: “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

Many news organizations reported the Supreme Court ruling would allow the administration to prioritize deporting violent criminals. But under the current administration, deportations immediately dropped by two-thirds in the first fiscal year of the administration, according to CBP data. In fiscal 2021, deportations also dropped to the lowest level since fiscal 1996 despite record-high illegal entries.

Mayorkas’ policy also followed President Joe Biden’s directive, who after taking office ordered a “pause” on deportations.

Last July, 19 attorneys general filed an amicus brief expressing support for Texas’ and Louisiana’s lawsuit, arguing Mayorkas violated federal law and DHS’s actions negatively impacted their states and jeopardized the safety and welfare of Americans.

The AGs argued, and still maintain, “The Amici States and their citizens continue to suffer significant costs from illegal immigration – including billions of dollars in new expenses relating to law enforcement, education, and healthcare programs – as a direct result of Defendants’ failures to enforce immigration law. Those harms are exacerbated by DHS’ increasingly brazen disrespect for the requirements of our nation’s immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The border is in crisis,” they argued. “This DHS Administration is lawless. And the States continue to suffer escalating irreparable harm as the border crisis continually intensifies to successive, ever-more unprecedented levels of illegal crossings.”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit appeared first on The Political Insider.

McCarthy isn’t happy with Boebert’s impeachment shenanigans

Posted on June 21, 2023 by Joan McCarter

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was not a happy camper in the Republican conference meeting Wednesday morning, thanks to the latest antics of Rep. Lauren Boebert, Colorado’s contribution to the debasement of Congress. On Tuesday evening, Boeber introduced a privileged resolution to impeach President Joe Biden on the made-up charge that he violated his oath by not stopping illegal immigration. The charge isn’t important, it’s the mechanism that’s got McCarthy’s knickers twisted.

Under House rules, privileged resolutions bypass the regular process—and leadership’s ability to determine what goes to the floor—and have to be voted on within two legislative days. There are only two legislative days left this week before Congress heads out to celebrate July 4 for the next 19 days. So this eats up time and energy that the House can’t really afford, not that they were going to accomplish much of anything in these two days. It also exposes the whole Republican conference as a clown car, and McCarthy’s weak leadership for what it is.

Democrats said they would move to table the motion, which puts McCarthy in the position, again, of having to rely on Democrats for help, which only serves to piss off the Freedom Caucus maniacs and their allies more, which will lead to exactly what is happening now: escalation.

.@RepMTG says she will speak to McCarthy later today on her push to impeach Biden, others. She says she addressed the conference about impeachment telling them it’s “the right thing to do.” She plans to convert all her articles to privileged resolutions.
— Mica Soellner (@MicaSoellnerDC) June 21, 2023

Greene has a raft of impeachment resolutions, and if she makes them all privileged, there’s another two weeks of work eaten up. She’s mad that Boebert upstaged her on this one, calling Boebert a “copycat.”

At the same time, Rep. Adam Schiff’s stalker colleague, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Freedom Caucuser, is pushing a second privileged resolution to censure him. Luna has sponsored six resolutions so far this year. Five of them are about Schiff. The first privileged one failed last week when 20 Republicans joined with Democrats to table it.

Which leads to the question of just how orchestrated all this is. It doesn’t seem likely, but the Freedom Caucus might just be organized enough to be planning this in another effort to gum up the works in the House and just to harass McCarthy.

The week before last, 11 of them shut the House down by blocking a rule vote—the first time that had happened in 21 years—and refusing to agree to let it pass until McCarthy sufficiently appeased them by agreeing to renege on the debt ceiling deal he had negotiated with Biden. It’s hard to credit those people with enough organizational skills or procedural knowledge to look at what Boebert and Luna are doing as strategy, but stranger things have happened.

All of which McCarthy brought upon himself. For one thing, he’s amplified and encouraged the border hysteria. That’s despite a substantial decline in actual illegal border crossings in recent weeks. He greenlit bogus investigations of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to determine whether he should be impeached. There are at least four impeachment resolutions out there against Mayorkas, one of them from Greene. This latest from her and Boebert will likely encourage all these yahoos to make their resolutions privileged too.

Which is what got McCarthy worked up. “There was a discussion about regular order in January,” he reportedly said in Wednesday morning’s conference meeting. “And going through committee—but now we have members doing privileged motions without going through committee or even speaking with the conference.”

“What majority do we want to be?” he said. “Give it right back in 2 years or hold it for a decade and make real change. How are we going to censure Adam Schiff for abusing his position to lie and force an impeachment and then turn around and do it ourselves the next day?”

Welcome to the bed you made, Kev. Enjoy the fact that you’re going to have to rely on the Democrats to bail you out again.

RELATED STORIES:

GOP rebels shut the House down

Do McCarthy and the misfits have a political death wish?

McCarthy is screwing over swing-district Republicans

Feds Catch More Than 460 Known, Suspected Terrorists In Nine Months, Most At Northern Border

Posted on June 21, 2023 by The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

There have been hundreds of known or suspected terrorists apprehended at the northern and southern borders in the current fiscal year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

As foreign nationals illegally enter the U.S. and are apprehended, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations agents screen them against a federal Terrorist Screening Dataset, which includes sensitive information about terrorist identities. It originated as a consolidated terrorist watch list “to house information on known or suspected terrorists, or KSTs, but has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watch-listed individuals,” CBP states.

As of June 15, OFO agents apprehended 53 KSTs at southwest border ports of entry and 284 at northern border ports of entry, totaling 337. CBP’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

They also apprehended 125 KSTs between ports of entry at the southern border and two between ports of entry at the northern border, totaling 127 KSTs fiscal year to date.

Combined, they’ve apprehended 464 known or suspected terrorists.

That’s nearly a 30% increase in one month after previous increases were roughly 87%.

Roughly one month ago, The Center Square reported OFO agents apprehended 332 KSTs at both borders. They apprehended 125 at the southern border (45 KSTs at ports of entry and 80 between ports of entry) and 207 at the northern border (205 at ports of entry and two between ports of entry).

These numbers were up from 284 KSTs apprehended by March, which was significantly up from 38 apprehended by January, an 87% increase in just two months.

By comparison, in fiscal 2022, 478 KSTs were apprehended in fiscal 2022. Agents apprehended 165 at the southern border (67 at ports of entry and 98 between ports of entry) and 313 at northern border ports of entry.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas maintains that the border is closed and secure. He’s refused to resign despite growing calls for him to do so. Multiple attorneys general and members of Congress have called for his impeachment.

While border security experts acknowledge the commendable work of OFO agents in apprehending known or suspected terrorists, they also express concern about how many have illegally entered the U.S. unabated.

Last month, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration Tom Homan warned, “What’s happening is the greatest national security threat since 9/11. Border Patrol has arrested people from 171 countries. Many of these countries are sponsors of terrorism.”

He also pointed to the record number of gotaways, those who’ve illegally entered the U.S. and evaded capture by law enforcement, totaling over 1.7 million reported by Border Patrol agents since the president’s been in office – that number’s since gone up.

“If you don’t think a single one of the 1.7 million is coming from a country that sponsors terrorism, then you’re ignoring the data,” Homan said. “That’s what makes this a huge national security issue.”

While many have focused on the southern border, a congressional Northern Border Security Caucus was formed in March to call for additional security along there. It’s mainly left unmanned when comparing the amount of personnel to square mileage.

The U.S. northern border is the longest international border in the world, spanning 5,525 miles. Fourteen states share the U.S.-Canada border; 13 to Canada’s south and Alaska to its west.

By comparison, four states share 1,954 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, with Texas sharing the most of 1,254 miles.

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Feds Catch More Than 460 Known, Suspected Terrorists In Nine Months, Most At Northern Border appeared first on The Political Insider.

Boebert moves to force vote on impeaching Biden over handling of border

Posted on June 21, 2023 (Updated June 21, 2023) by Emily Brooks

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is forcing a House vote on impeaching President Biden over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border and immigration policy, making a surprise privileged motion Tuesday evening that will require House floor action on the matter this week.

Walking off the House floor Tuesday, Boebert said that while House GOP leadership was aware she would make the privileged motion, the date of further action was still being scheduled.

A notice from House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) on Tuesday indicated that Democrats will make a motion to table the resolution when it comes up for a vote on the floor, a procedural move that would block the resolution from coming to the floor for a vote.

Boebert’s impeachment resolution, which she introduced earlier this month, includes two impeachment articles: one for abuse of power, and another for dereliction of duty.

In the first impeachment article, Boebert charges that Biden “knowingly presided over an executive branch that has continuously, overtly, and consistently violated Federal immigration law by pursuing an aggressive, open-borders agenda,” saying the U.S. allowed a high number of migrants released into the country “without the intention or ability to ensure that they appear in immigration court to face asylum or deportation proceedings.”

In the second impeachment article, Boebert’s resolution points to deportation cases being at historic lows, and deaths caused by fentanyl.

In response to Boebert’s move, the White House accused House Republicans of staging “political stunts.”

“Instead of working with President Biden on solutions to the issues that matter most to the American people, like creating jobs, lowering costs and strengthening health care, extreme House Republicans are staging baseless political stunts that do nothing to help real people and only serve to get themselves attention,” Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations, said in a statement.

Boebert did not predict whether her impeachment articles would pass or not.

“We'll see. I mean, I hope that Republicans and Democrats alike can recognize the invasion that's taking place at our southern border, and that the laws of our nation are not being faithfully executed, and that we have an opportunity to bring a check and a balance to the invasion that's going on,” Boebert said.

Boebert's ideological ally, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), is aiming to force a vote of her own this week on a motion to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) of his handling of investigations into former President Trump.

Republicans have also been calling attention to the focus on the business dealings of President Biden’s family members after his son, Hunter Biden, agreed to a plea deal involving federal tax and gun charges Tuesday.

Asked why she was forcing the impeachment articles now, Boebert said: “It's been time. It's past time.”

Most House Republicans hungry for retribution over the U.S.-Mexico border have focused on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas rather than Biden. Last week, the House GOP launched an investigation that could serve as the basis of an eventual Mayorkas impeachment.

Updated at 9:47 p.m. EDT.

House GOP inches closer to Mayorkas impeachment amid discord in conference

Posted on June 14, 2023 (Updated June 14, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

House Republicans inched closer this week toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, officially launching an investigation that would serve as the basis for any inquiry.

But conservative supporters of the effort still face enormous hurdles, including a reluctance of leadership to take such a drastic step and the continued opposition from more moderate lawmakers in the GOP conference — barriers that even the loudest Mayorkas critics have been forced to acknowledge.

On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee said they would review Mayorkas’s performance through a five-phase plan, which Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said could be completed in a matter of 11 or 12 weeks.

“His policies have resulted in a humanitarian crisis this country has never seen,” Green said at a press conference.

“Today's hearing will begin the process of digging into all of the details. The cause and effect of Alejandro Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty. I hope the American people will listen intently. I hope the press will report this, honestly. I hope the president of the United States, the commander in chief charged with the security and protection of this country, will listen. He can't possibly know of all of these failures of Mayorkas and have not fired him already.”

It’s a process that faces a complex path in the House — and one that’s already highlighted several layers of division within the GOP conference. Not only is there discord between impeachment supporters and opponents, but there’s also growing tension among Mayorkas’s most vocal critics, all of whom seem to want to play a prominent role in the effort to oust him.

“We don't have the votes,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday. Asked what would change the minds of the Republican opponents, he offered a biting criticism of his centrist colleagues.

“An embrace of logic and reason,” he said.

Green’s presser was followed by a hearing titled “Open Borders, Closed Case: Secretary Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty on the Border Crisis.”

Democrats argued the hearing’s name alone shows Republicans have already reached a conclusion on whether to take the dramatic step of impeaching a cabinet secretary — an action not seen since the 1870s.

“You may have a difference of opinion as to how the United States should process our asylum applicants. But the notion that that difference of a policy opinion would be the basis for a quote unquote, ‘case closed’ that Secretary Mayorkas is violating his duty, is preposterous and it is not any basis for impeachment,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who before entering Congress worked as lead counsel for the first impeachment inquiry against former President Trump.

The move, six months into GOP leadership of the House, follows wrangling within the conference over how speedily to pursue the topic.

While a slew of lawmakers introduced impeachment resolutions days after the contentious vote to give the gavel to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the most recent effort was offered by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a sign of discontent among those eager to speed ahead.

It also comes as border numbers have dropped in the weeks following the May lifting of a policy that allowed the U.S. to quickly deny entry to would-be asylum seekers, bucking widespread predictions of a surge of migrants. The repeal of that policy, however, was paired with the reintroduction of consequences for those caught wrongly crossing the border.

“The number of Border Patrol encounters have plummeted by 70 percent since the Biden administration ended Title 42 last month. The number of overall border encounters have dropped by 50 percent in that time, due in large part to [Homeland Security's] hard work under Secretary Mayorkas’s leadership,” ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said during the hearing.

“Calling a hearing and saying ‘case closed’ before you’ve heard any testimony is not legitimate oversight. ... It’s about House Republican leadership catering to its most extreme MAGA members, who want to impeach someone — anyone at all. It’s about trying to make good on GOP backroom deals to elect a Speaker, raise the debt ceiling and stave off a mutiny in the Republican ranks.”

The House Homeland Security Committee doesn’t have the power to ignite an impeachment inquiry. That task falls to the House Judiciary Committee.

Green has cast the investigation as an effort that will be handed off to the other panel and ultimately brought to fruition by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

The firebrand Georgia congresswoman, however, offered her impeachment resolution with a tweet that included an emoji of a slice of cake, a reference to earlier comments that the debt ceiling package would be more appealing if it included “dessert” like an impeachment of Mayorkas or FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The move was a reflection of impatience from some in the GOP, even as McCarthy has largely stuck to comments he made while visiting the border late last year stressing the need to investigate.

“I know people are very frustrated with [Mayorkas],” McCarthy told CNN last month, but added that any impeachment process shouldn’t be pursued “for political reasons.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, suggested the Speaker is moving closer toward backing the impeachment effort.

"McCarthy has loosened up on that. Whereas quite some time ago he was a no, now he’s kinda saying — kinda saying — yes,” Biggs said. Other reluctant Republicans are also shifting, he said.

“There are people who were an absolute ‘no’ on it even a few weeks ago, and now told me that they're moveable,” he said. “There's probably two or three people that I'm trying to work on, see if I can move them my way. And if those two or three come along, I think then we're ready to go.”

Green sidestepped questions over whether the caucus would be able to secure the votes to impeach Mayorkas.

“I would say it’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer, that Republicans are individualists and we think independently, we’re not robots being told by a Speaker how to vote,” he said in a nod to the standstill on the House floor led by a group of far-right members who stalled a vote on a GOP bill on gas stoves as a way to voice frustration with McCarthy's handling of the debt ceiling.

“And so, there are many people with differences of opinions about this. And, you know, I'm in a leadership position, and from my leadership position, the direction of our committee is to get to the facts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back on GOP arguments and has largely blamed Congress for issues at the border.

“The immigration system has been terribly broken and outdated for decades. That is something about which everyone agrees, and it is my hope that they take that problem, and they fix it once and for all. In the meantime, within a broken system, we are doing everything that we can to increase its efficiency, to provide humanitarian relief when the law permits and to also deliver an enforcement consequence when the law dictates,” Mayorkas said earlier this year during an appearance on MSNBC.

“That is exactly what we are doing, and as far as I am concerned, I will continue to do that with tremendous pride with the people with whom I work." 

Green said his five-point plan includes investigations into cartels as well as the financial cost associated with migration.

“The guy has got to go,” Green said.

“We're going to hold him accountable. And if the president picks another guy that does this kind of stuff, we'll do what we have to do there too.”

The Memo: Texas killing sparks outrage from Biden’s border critics

Posted on May 2, 2023 (Updated May 2, 2023) by Niall Stanage

A horrific mass killing in Texas has opened new sores in the national debate over illegal immigration and crime.

Five people, including a young boy whose age has been reported as 8 or 9, were killed Friday in Cleveland, Texas. The shooting in the small community about 45 miles north of Houston happened after neighbors reportedly told a man to stop shooting in his yard and he became enraged.

The alleged shooter has been named as Francisco Oropeza, 38. As of Monday afternoon, law enforcement agencies have been unable to apprehend Oropeza, despite a massive manhunt.

The case has taken on political power for reasons beyond the gruesome nature of the killing.

Oropeza is a Mexican national who appears to have been in the United States illegally. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have confirmed that he was deported on at least four previous occasions stretching back more than a decade.

His previous deportations, those officials said, took place in March 2009, September 2009, January 2012 and July 2016.

That record, and the terrible crime of which he stands accused, has outraged those who want a stricter border policy.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents rank-and-file Border Patrol agents, noted that seeking to illegally reenter the United States having previously been deported is a felony.

“Had we prosecuted him for that felony, he would not have been able to kill” his alleged victims, Judd said.

Judd also made a wider point about border policy under President Biden.

“When you hear people like [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas say the border is not open, you have to look at this particular case … If somebody was able to reenter this country five different times despite being deported, that clearly shows the border is, in fact, open.”

Liberal advocates hit back, arguing that, historically, immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans — and that attempts to draw a cause-and-effect line between immigration policy and the latest killing are raw demagoguery.

It’s a point that finds support from some independent observers.

Rhetoric linking illegal immigration and violent crime “has been used for a long time,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

“None of the social science data confirms that is true and it quite often shows the opposite — that neighborhoods with a lot of immigration are safer,” said Zelizer. “But politically it has been very powerful. It creates the idea of an enemy coming from outside who is now inside.”

The political battle is only growing more intense.

“This illegal alien brutally murdered 5 individuals in an ‘execution-style’ shooting,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted Monday. “He was previously deported and has been arrested numerous times. Why was he in our country roaming around freely?”

Biggs called for the impeachment of Mayorkas.

Kari Lake, the defeated GOP candidate in last November’s Arizona gubernatorial election, tweeted, “How do we continue to let these criminals into the country?”

At Monday’s media briefing, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre characterized the events in Cleveland as “yet another shocking, horrific act of gun violence.”

Jean-Pierre noted that while President Biden was “praying” for those affected, “the president believes prayers alone are not enough.”

The press secretary noted Biden’s desire for Congress to pass stricter gun-control legislation — a long-held wish that has almost no chance of being fulfilled anytime soon.

Continuing the political back-and-forth, the Republican National Committee tweeted within minutes of Jean-Pierre’s opening remarks that she did “not mention” that Oropeza is “an illegal immigrant who has been deported FIVE TIMES.”

The atrocity in Texas arises at an especially febrile time when it comes to debates about the border.

Encounters between unauthorized migrants and Customs and Border Protection agents at the southwestern border hit their highest figure ever recorded last December, at more than 252,000.

The figure declined significantly in January and February, to fewer than 160,000 in each month. But in March, the most recent month for which data is available, those encounters rose again, to almost 192,000.

It is widely expected that those numbers will surge once Title 42 ends in less than two weeks. That Trump-era policy, continued under Biden, was used to quickly expel migrants and is expected to end on May 11.

Immigration has long been one of Biden’s weakest political issues and Republicans are sure to want to press their advantage on the topic as the presidential campaign heats up.

In a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-April, just 27 percent of Americans approved of Biden’s handling of immigration — tying for the lowest approval number in any of the 11 issues tested in that survey.

Advocates of a stricter immigration policy see the shooting in Texas as evidence of how badly the current policy is falling.

“It’s just another example of what happens when we fail to enforse our laws, when you fail to enforce the border,” said Ira Mehlman, the media director of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors a stricter immigration system. “Virtually nobody is deported anymore.”

But Mehlman distanced himself from a controversial statement from the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, which referred to the victims of the Cleveland shooting as “five illegal immigrants.”

“It doesn’t matter what the immigration states of the victims is,” Mehlman said. “Nobody should be killed for asking a guy to stop shooting in his backyard.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Mayorkas says administration to announce plans to address expected border surge

Posted on April 21, 2023 (Updated April 21, 2023) by Nick Robertson

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says the Biden administration is getting ready to announce a new border security plan to handle an expected surge of migrants when pandemic-era immigration restrictions lift May 11.

“I think next week we’ll have more to say about our preparation and some of the things we are going to be doing,” Mayorkas told reporters at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Thursday.

President Biden has come under steady fire from Republican lawmakers over his administration’s handling of the border. This week, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) filed a vote of no confidence resolution against Mayorkas, saying his handling of the border is negligent.

“I stand at the ready to receive articles of impeachment from the House and conduct an impeachment trial in this body,” Marshall said at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “But in the meantime, I think the Senate must show our colleagues in the House that we’ve had enough of the failures from the Department of Homeland Security and believe that the secretary is not fit to faithfully carry out the duties of his office.”

Illegal border crossings are expected to increase significantly starting in May once pandemic-era rules on immigration expire, most notably Title 42, which allows the U.S. to quickly turn away undocumented migrants without allowing them to seek asylum in the interest of public health.

“We’re certainly going to see numbers higher than we’re seeing today,” Border Patrol Commissioner Troy Miller said in a hearing Wednesday.

Miller cited U.N. statistics that an estimated 660,000 migrants are traveling through Mexico right now. He said the number of border crossings could nearly double to about 10,000 per day.

Mayorkas did not disclose what the new plan would be, but he said the department would prepare with additional bed space in migrant facilities.

Nearly 2 million migrants have been turned back from the border using Title 42. The Biden administration has come under fire from Democrats and activists who have said the measure does not provide border crossers with their right to seek asylum in the U.S.

The administration has attempted to overturn Title 42 in the past but ran into roadblocks in federal court and opposition from Republican lawmakers in border states. With the coronavirus pandemic officially over, the administration no longer expects any legal challenges.

Mayorkas said the department is considering a new rule to more easily deny asylum claims. Migrants who have not applied for asylum in other countries on their way to the U.S. or have crossed the border illegally would not be eligible for asylum.

The rule is in the public comment period, and Mayorkas said Tuesday that there is not a specific date for implementation as of now.

Mayorkas was questioned by House and Senate lawmakers this week in hearings that saw him receive harsh criticism and some personal attacks.

Much of the criticism was focused on reports that a significant number of child migrants were placed with sponsors who forced them to work, sometimes through the night, at dangerous factories.

Immigration is expected to be a major issue in the 2024 election; Biden is expected to announce his reelection campaign in the coming days.

How a Bush-era law requiring border ‘perfection’ stands at center of GOP impeachment case

Posted on February 14, 2023 (Updated February 14, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

A budding GOP impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is relying on a 2006 law that says operational control of the border means the prevention “of all unlawful entries” to the United States — a standard seen as impossible to meet.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed during a failed Bush-era effort to move a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the fallout, House Republicans rushed to show they were taking action on border security, requiring the installation of intermittent fencing along the southern border.

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Gregory Payan/AP Images for NFL)

But a provision of the law defining operational control is now at the center of the new House GOP majority’s effort to impeach Mayorkas, who is accused of lying to Congress when he’s said the border is secure.

“Secretary Mayorkas does not think that the border is open. He thinks that he has operational control, although the Secure Fence Act of 2006 clearly defines what operational control of a border is, and that means that no contraband or individual can come into the country illegally,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, a conservative Republican from Arizona and one of two members who have formally introduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“And yet, under his watch, Secretary Mayorkas has allowed in approximately 5 million illegal aliens coming through, and that doesn’t include got-aways,” added Biggs.

Republicans argue that Mayorkas has been ineffective in managing what they see as a crisis, as record numbers of migrants attempt to cross the southern border. It’s a failure they contend is a violation of his oath of office.

“He has taken an oath, a constitutional oath, to obey the laws of the United States and protect us,” said Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who this year filed the first articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jess Rapfogel)

“In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed which requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to maintain the operational control of the southern border. He has clearly not done that,” Fallon said.

Democrats and other critics of the GOP case argue that the differences between Republicans and Mayorkas are largely policy issues that don’t rise to the level of impeachment.

“Impeachment covers treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not typically envisioned as covering policy disputes, or disagreements on policy, which seems like what these are,” said Dave Rapallo, a Georgetown Law professor who also worked with Democrats on the impeachment of former President Trump.

He and others argue that the 2006 law lays out an impossible standard — but includes clear language that gives the secretary the discretion to determine how to meet it.

“Congress has delegated to the secretary of Homeland Security the decision to determine what is 'necessary and appropriate.' And that's what the department is doing. There may be a difference of opinion about whether that happens with walls or other mechanisms to prevent unlawful entry,” Rapallo said. “But if the standard is that not one migrant can get into the United States, that’s a standard no secretary of Homeland Security would ever meet.”

Doris Meissner, who ran the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Clinton and how heads the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said the standard "isn't something that we ask of any other law enforcement regime."

Previous Homeland Security secretaries, Democrats and Republicans, have not been removed over the standard highlighted by Biggs and Fallon.

“The assumption with having law enforcement at all, is that there are laws and there will be a degree to which laws are broken, and law enforcement, and law enforcement systems, and structures are in place to keep them to a minimum and to create accountability if they do happen," said Meissner.

Biggs himself acknowledged the standard that no one or thing can enter the country illegally for the DHS secretary to not be impeached is a high one. But he argues Mayorkas still deserves to be impeached because of how he has handled border security.

“While that particular statute requires perfection, which we all recognize is an impossible task, the American public still trusts him to do his very best to secure operational control of the border. He necessarily has the ‘public trust,’ and as a Cabinet secretary, he is a public man,” he wrote in an op-ed shortly after introducing his resolution.

“The case against Alejandro Mayorkas … does not necessarily turn on whether Mayorkas has actually committed a statutorily defined black-letter crime. It is whether he has committed a ‘high crime’ as that term is understood under the U.S. Constitution.”

The fencing bill was passed after two competing comprehensive immigration reform bills moved through the House and Senate in 2005.

The House version, led by former Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), was a security-focused immigration crackdown; the Senate version led by former Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) paired border security and guest worker provisions with a broad legalization program for undocumented immigrants.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jan. 29, 2008 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

To no one's surprise, the House and Senate were unable to find a middle ground in conference, and the two bills failed in the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections.

“There really was a strong feeling, in the Senate in particular, that people had to go home with something to show for immigration, in order to be running their campaigns, and having some kind of a message to take back to their constituents,” said Meissner.

“So they passed this act quite hurriedly in October of 2006, right on the cusp of the elections. It just had this sort of sweeping mandate, which really hadn't been tested or vetted with the executive branch,” she added.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), one of the co-sponsors of the 2006 border bill, described the legislation as tasking the Homeland Security secretary to determine where to put fencing.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

“It was our intention to put a fence not everywhere but where it made sense to put the fence on the border, you know, [in] more populated areas to have the infrastructure in place to stop illegal crossings,” he said, noting along with specific mileage of fencing, “we gave discretion to the secretary to use his or her judgment as to where to put it.”

McCaul, a stern Mayorkas critic who has directly admonished the secretary in hearings, has likewise criticized members of his party for rushing a process he said should be handled by committees of jurisdiction who can investigate and build a strong case for impeachment.

“You can make the case to the American people without having to do it overnight. We criticized the Democrats for impeaching Trump in one day. ... We shouldn't make that same mistake,” he told The Hill.

Mayorkas and his department are now gearing up for a fight.

The department initially declined to assign specific staff to deal with impeachment, but on Friday confirmed it had hired an outside law firm to aid in any eventual impeachment hearings.

It’s also shifted tone in its public statements on impeachment developments, attacking the credibility of the resolutions directly.

“Instead of pointing fingers and trying to score political points, the Members of Congress recklessly and baselessly pursuing impeachment should work on legislative solutions for our broken immigration system,” DHS said last week when Biggs’s resolution was introduced. 

Republicans have rolled out other arguments for impeachment, including one that mirrors a recent lawsuit from a number of GOP-led states challenging a program that allows 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to be “paroled” into the country each month, while quickly expelling to Mexico an equal number of migrants from those countries who show up at the border.

The resolution deems the current use of parole an abuse, calling it a way to "'legally’ admit aliens.”

Biggs and other Republicans are also basing their impeachment case on a broader claim — dismissed as a conspiracy theory by Democrats — that the Biden administration is intentionally loosening border controls.

“First of all, when we look at that intentionality, this is done intentionally,” Biggs told reporters last week. “This is not negligence, it is not by accident. It is not incompetence, and how do we know that? Well, just like we look at a culpable mental state, like intentionality or knowledge, we look at a totality of circumstances."

Biggs said the evidence of intention is in Mayorkas ending a series of Trump-era border policies, a move that many Republicans believe is the direct cause of increased migration in the Western Hemisphere, presumably knowing his policies would result in increased border crossings.

But whether Republican leadership decides to forward any impeachment resolution, the process could face a substantial roadblock in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber.

“A majority of the House could just decide to impeach the secretary based on whatever it puts in its resolution,” Rapallo said. “But that's highly unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.”

Partisan rift widens on immigration policy, as seen in two House hearings

Posted on February 8, 2023 (Updated February 8, 2023) by Rafael Bernal

Republicans and Democrats kicked off the first major immigration policy meetings of the new Congress at odds, with little agreement on even the most basic facts on the issue.

The parties have now faced off on the legislative stage twice, in hearings convened by the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Accountability committees. They’ve accomplished little more than to highlight the growing partisan split, despite a plea to “find a solution" from the El Paso Border Patrol sector chief.

The Judiciary Committee, led by GOP firebrand Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), hosted the more combative hearing, focusing on an alleged correlation between immigration and fentanyl trafficking and accusing the Biden administration of purposely dismantling border security.

"Make no mistake, the Biden administration is carrying out its plan," said Jordan in his opening remarks last week.

"We all heard [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas, who sat in front of this committee and said, 'we are executing our plan on the border.' And we all heard President Biden say, 'we're trying to make it easier for people to get here.' Well, they're certainly succeeding in that," added Jordan.

Tuesday’s Oversight hearing led by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), which featured two Border Patrol sector chiefs as witnesses, was comparatively phlegmatic, though Democrats still voiced their anger at the GOP's handling of the subject matter.

"The extreme MAGA forces in the Republican Party have chosen to abandon the pro-immigration stance of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan and instead spread fear about a 'foreign invasion,' paranoia about the racist and antisemitic 'Great Replacement' mythology, and disinformation about fentanyl — the vast majority of which is brought into our country by American smugglers working for the international drug cartels and traveling through lawful ports of entry," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee.

"I ardently hope today’s hearing will become a chance to search for bipartisan agreement rather than another missed opportunity. … Turning this into more bad political theater will just extend the long pattern of failure on this question."

But Raskin's hopes for bipartisanship were quickly quashed.

Following Comer and Raskin's opening remarks, Comer took the microphone to complain about a White House memo released early Tuesday that said, "House Republicans are more interested in staging political stunts than on rolling up their sleeves to work with President Biden and Democrats in Congress," and a tweet from the Oversight Democrats wishing, "Good morning and good luck to everyone except @GOPoversight members who are using today's hearing to amplify white nationalist conspiracy theories instead of a comprehensive solution to protect our borders and strengthen our immigration system."

"I mean, really? I don't even know what to say about that," said Comer, before reminding Democrats that House rules prohibit personal attacks between members.

For the next five hours, Oversight members essentially replicated the bifurcated proceedings of a week prior at the Judiciary Committee.

At the heart of the rift, apparent in both hearings, is a disagreement over whether the fentanyl crisis, legal immigration, asylum and border security should be treated as separate issues, or whether a border crackdown would resolve them all.

But the witnesses were a key distinction between the two hearings.

Comer invited two active duty border security professionals, Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Agent Gloria Chavez and Tucson Sector Chief Agent John Modlin, both of whom fielded questions from Republicans and Democrats alike on a variety of border-related issues.

“If I wanted to have a big political hearing that was full of red meat, we would have victims’ families that lost their lives to fentanyl. We would have people that have been human trafficked. But we’re not. We just asked four Border Patrol bosses," Comer to ld attendants at a National Press Club event last month.

Jordan took the "red meat" approach, calling on Brandon Dunn, a father whose son died from a fentanyl overdose and the founder of Forever 15 Project, an organization to raise awareness of the dangers of the drug.

The Ohio Republican also called on Cochise County, Ariz., Sheriff Mark Dannels and Dale Lynn Carruthers, county judge of Terrell County, Texas (though Carruthers was unable to attend because of weather conditions).

Advocates were heavily critical of Jordan's choice of Dannels and Carruthers as witnesses, pointing to Dannels's frequent appearances on right-wing media and alleged connections to immigration restrictionist groups.

Heidi Beirich, an expert in American and European right-wing groups and co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, said both Dannels and Carruthers had embraced the rhetoric of an "invasion" at the southern border.

"The fact that Daniels and Carruthers have engaged in this racist rhetoric about immigrants and their ties to hate and other extremist groups disqualify them from any productive discussions on things related to immigration," said Beirich.

Scores of Democrats called out the GOP's "invasion" rhetoric as going too far, though most Republicans avoided the word, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) defended its use.

"The definition of an invasion is an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity,” he said, repeating claims that enough fentanyl has entered the U.S. to “kill every American five times.”

"I would consider that to be the direct definition of the word invasion,” Hunt said.

But Democrats largely countered that point with Customs and Border Protection data that shows more than 90 percent of fentanyl enters the United States through legal ports of entry.

"This hearing isn't about border security or solving our opioid crisis. It isn't even facts. What it's about is painting immigrants as villains in order for my colleagues to further their anti-immigrant agenda," said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).

"Republicans are trying to rewrite history to hide their extremist agenda from the American people," he added. "This extreme wing is trying to say that immigrants are trafficking fentanyl across an unchecked border but we know that that's not true. Why? Because it happens at the ports of entry by U.S. citizens, not mainly by asylum seekers."

The partisan split on immigration policy prescriptions is nothing new.

"This is just exactly the kind of finger-pointing rather than serious efforts of problem solving, and political theater rather than problem solving that we're likely to see because the Congress has abdicated its role for decades now, where immigration – and updating immigration laws and capabilities – are concerned," said Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service who now leads the Migration Policy Institute's U.S. Immigration Policy Program.

But the rift has grown in scope and in political impact.

"The worldview seems so dichotomous. How in the world do we bridge a gap?" said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who shortly after the Judiciary hearing led a group calling for the impeachment of Mayorkas.

Democrats are convinced the GOP's hard line is just political grandstanding.

"It's the presidential election starting now. Immigration is the issue. It's an effective one that continues to be used over and over. It will be ugly," said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.).

Despite the distance between the two parties, the Border Patrol officers at Tuesday’s hearing, who largely relayed a landscape of officers under-resourced compared with smugglers and cartels, pleaded for some kind of legislative action.

"I think we really just need to embrace change, good change, so that we reform our immigration law and have that balance between immigration and border security and get serious about that. We need to find a solution," said Chavez, the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol sector chief.

Emily Brooks contributed.

Republicans introduce second impeachment article for Mayorkas

Posted on February 2, 2023 (Updated February 2, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

GOP lawmakers banded together to file an additional resolution that would impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, filing a second bill to do so less than a month into the new Congress.

The resolution filed Wednesday comes after its sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), promised a resolution with “even more justification” than a first resolution filed immediately after the Speaker’s race concluded.

Biggs called Mayorkas “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border” in a press release announcing the move and argued the uptick in migration is a result of a “willful and intentional” violation of Mayorkas’s oath of office.

But Biggs’s efforts clash with those in the party who say impeachment should follow a thorough inquiry, a promise House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made in November when he said the GOP would “investigate every order, every action” to determine whether to begin an inquiry.

House Republicans are split over how to pursue the topic and how speedily to do so.

“We made the argument that impeachment was rushed — the second impeachment — and I think that’s not who we are as a party,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) previously told The Hill in reference to the second impeachment of former President Trump.

He said it’s the committees of jurisdiction that should be leading the inquiry.

“We need to have hearings on this and we need to gather evidence and facts and, look, do I think the guy has done a terrible job? Yes,“ McCaul said. “Do I think he’s been derelict in his responsibilities? Yes. But we need to get all this together, and do it in a methodical way.”

Biggs's resolution is largely based on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which requires the Homeland Security secretary “take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control” of the border.

But the law, true to its name, primarily deals with fencing. It says the the secretary should weigh operational control for the border in regards to both surveillance and “physical infrastructure enhancements.”

Only one Cabinet member has been impeached in history — former President Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, who was accused of taking kickbacks from a contractor he appointed to run the trader post in Fort Sill, Okla. Belknap resigned before facing an almost-certain Senate conviction, a fate that’s unlikely to play out with Mayorkas given the Democratic majority in the upper chamber.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t immediately respond to request for comment, but the agency has previously noted Mayorkas has no plans to resign.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” DHS said after the introduction of the first resolution.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which they have not updated in over 40 years.”