Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against President Biden on Thursday, alleging he has violated his oath of office in not securing the country’s borders and protecting national security. 

Greene said at a press conference this will be the “first set” of articles she introduces against Biden, whom she said has purposefully failed to fulfill his responsibilities of the presidency.

“It is with the highest amount of solemnity that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America-last executive branch, that has been working since Jan. 20, 2021, to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden,” Greene said.

Greene made a similar announcement two days ago regarding her plans to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Greene said she has also introduced articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

The White House called Greene's plan a "stunt," noting Biden is focused on "preventing House Republicans’ default that would crash the economy."

“Is there a bigger example of a shameless sideshow political stunt than a trolling impeachment attack by one of the most extreme MAGA members in Congress over ‘national security’ while she actively demands to defund the FBI and even said she ‘would’ve been armed’ and ‘would have won’ the January 6 insurrection, if only she’d been in charge of it?" said Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations.

Greene initially introduced articles of impeachment against Biden on the first day of his presidency. She also filed articles against Garland in August following the search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for the classified and sensitive documents taken there. Neither advanced in the House.

The Georgia Republican and ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Biden has refused to enforced immigration laws and secure the border, "deliberately" compromising U.S. national security. She said he has allowed migrants to "invade" the country while depriving border control agents of the resources and policies they need to perform their duties.

Greene said Biden has allowed fentanyl to "flood" into the country and kill Americans every day.

She also slammed the administration over its plan to direct Customs and Border Protection to release migrants into the U.S. without a set court date or way to track them. Under the plan, migrants need to check in with an app until they are given a court date to appear.

Greene said it amounts to "catch-and-release," allowing the migrants to be released instead of being held in custody until their court date.

"His policies, directives and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country," she said. "Biden has blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security."

Article II of the Constitution states that the president and other U.S. officials can be removed from office through impeachment and conviction on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Greene said she wants to take time to gather cosponsors on her impeachment resolutions. She avoided directly answering a question on what exact charges she would file against Biden.

She said she discussed her plans to file the impeachment articles with other members of Republican leadership and said they did not ask her not to move forward.

She said she is introducing the articles because a majority the "base" of Republican voters and other Americans outside it agree with impeaching these officials, describing it as "the right thing to do."

"There's never any consequences for anyone in the federal government when regular American citizens face consequences all the time, and I'm introducing these articles because this is what people are demanding," Greene said.

Mayorkas has faced intense criticism from many Republicans over the situation at the southern border, which experienced a record number of migrant crossings in recent months. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) called for Mayorkas's impeachment last week.

Greene alleges Wray and Garland have turned the FBI and Justice Department into Biden's "personal police force" to prosecute the administration's political opponents. She claimed that those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were mostly peaceful, but Garland has still pursued them. A bipartisan Senate report found last year that seven people died related to the attack on the Capitol that day.

Greene said Wray prioritizes his own party above performing his job, wrongly identifying the Republican Wray as a Democrat. He has been director of the FBI since August 2017 and was nominated by former President Trump.

She said she is filing impeachment articles against Graves, the U.S. attorney, over his prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, which she said have continued while he has declined to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by Washington, D.C., police last year.

"That affects people in our nation's capital, just regular innocent people that live and work here. I think as our conference learns more and more on this, they'll understand it," she said.

Greene said employees are fired from their jobs if they are corrupt or are not adequately serving their employers. She said all five officials are corrupt and unfit to hold office, so they must be impeached.

Updated at 12:04 p.m.

Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene confidently predicted President Joe Biden “will be impeached” following a bombshell report alleging he engaged in criminal activity.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced Wednesday that a whistleblower had come forth claiming the DOJ and FBI possess a file describing an alleged “criminal scheme” between Biden and a foreign national while he was serving as Vice President.

Grassley has described the whistleblower as “credible.”

Comer subpoenaed the form in question which the accuser claims “describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.”

They claim the DOJ has the document in their possession.

Axios describes the claims as “the most direct allegation against President Biden himself.”

Comer’s subpoena is demanding the document within a week.

RELATED: GOP Senator Grassley Accuses FBI of Covering Up Biden Family ‘Potential Criminal Conduct’

Could Biden Be Impeached Over Alleged ‘Criminal Scheme’?

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a ‘breaking news’ video along with a copy of the joint letter from Grassley and Comer suggesting she now has “evidence” to prove President Biden’s alleged “criminal scheme.”

While the House Oversight Committee has not procured the document claimed to be in possession of the DOJ as of yet, Greene insists the group will continue to investigate Biden’s potential pay-for-play scheme with foreign nationals.

Greene claims the material would allegedly contain “proof and information that Joe Biden, as Vice President of the United States, actually interacted with a foreign national and made a deal with a foreign national in exchange for money.”

In a subsequent interview on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Greene suggests impeachment might finally be on the table.

“Now on the Oversight Committee, because we have real subpoena powers, we have the power to investigate and we have the power to do what we’re doing now,” she said.

“And that form shows the proof that Joe Biden took a money payment from a foreign national in exchange for policy decisions while he was vice president of the United States,” Greene claims.

She added: “This means that Joe Biden will be impeached.”

RELATED: Joe Biden Named in Email Discussing Call With Hunter About Major Gas Deal With China

Will the FBI Produce the Document?

Grassley, in an interview with Fox News’ Sandra Smith, reiterated that the whistleblower is viewed as “credible” by the Committee.

“So the Justice Department, the FBI needs to come clean to the American people, what they did with the document, because we know the document exists from very credible whistleblower information that we got,” insists Grassley.

“We really need to know what steps did the Justice Department and FBI take to investigate and to vet the document to determine if it’s accurate or not?”

If they saw the name Biden and viewed it as evidence of a ‘criminal scheme’ those steps most likely involved burying it as deep as humanly possible.

“If the Justice Department and the FBI have any hopes of redeeming their once trusted position with the American people, Garland and Wray must answer this subpoena and tell us what they’re doing with this information that we think is very credible based upon what whistleblowers are telling us,” added Grassley.

The Iowa congressman has been at the forefront of investigating corruption in the Biden family.

Prior to this report, Grassley accused the FBI of hiding ‘potential criminal conduct’ by the Biden family.

Representative Comer recently suggested at least a dozen relatives of President Biden could be exposed in foreign money deals.

A statement from the White House does not expressly deny any of the accusations but blows off the whistleblower claims as more of the same from Republicans.

“For going on 5 years now, Republicans in Congress have been lobbing unfounded politically-motivated attacks against [Biden] without offering evidence for their claims,” tweeted spokesman Ian Sams.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has suggested the allegations of criminal activity involving the “big guy” are so prevalent that he’s transferring the nickname ‘Crooked’ from Hillary Clinton to ‘Crooked Joe Biden.’

Comer has been indicating a press conference may come early this month where he intends to discuss the committee’s findings regarding “influence peddling” by Biden family members.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG appeared first on The Political Insider.

$8 Billion in U.S. Funds May Have Gone to the Taliban

By Adam Andrzejewski for RealClearInvestigations

Since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, the U.S. has continued sending money to the country in the form of humanitarian aid. Now, a watchdog claims that the U.S. can’t be confident that our $8 billion of aid to Afghanistan isn’t funding the Taliban.

John Sopko, the Special Inspector General to Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), recently testified before the House Oversight Committee, “Unfortunately, as I sit here today, I cannot assure this committee or the American taxpayer we are not currently funding the Taliban.”

OpentheBooks.com

RELATED: GOP Drafts Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Austin for Afghan Disaster

He continued “Nor can I assure you that the Taliban are not diverting the money we are sending from the intended recipients, which are the poor Afghan people.”

The U.S. has sent Afghanistan $8 billion in humanitarian aid since our military withdrawal in 2021, according to CNN. Biden Administration officials have repeatedly stressed this aid is strictly going toward humanitarian efforts via non-governmental organizations and other humanitarian aid organizations.

Sopko, however, admitted there is effectively no monitoring of these funds to ensure they are not going to the Taliban. The U.S. does not currently recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government.

No effective oversight means U.S. funds could end up in the wrong hands, “subjected to waste, fraud, and abuse,” SIGAR wrote.

The U.S. needs to seriously reevaluate its funding and monitoring processes to ensure taxpayer dollars are actually helping the Afghan people, and not ending up of in the hands of the brutal and barbaric Taliban government.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

MORE from RealClearWire:

The post $8 Billion in U.S. Funds May Have Gone to the Taliban appeared first on The Political Insider.

Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an invitation from Senator Dick Durbin to testify before Congress on ethics rules for the Supreme Court.

Roberts sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman implying that such testimony would threaten the basic government concept of separation of powers.

“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” he wrote.

“Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” Roberts explained.

Accompanying his letter declining Durbin’s invite was a copy of the court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices.

Roberts stated “all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe” to that ethics statement.

RELATED: Clarence Thomas, Consistent Target Of The Left, Explains ‘Right Is Still Right Even If You Stand By Yourself’

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Declines to Participate in Dick Durbin’s Sideshow

Dick Durbin’s invitation to Chief Justice John Roberts was little more than a thinly-veiled effort to address allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Another one of those ‘high-tech lynchings’ the left likes to engage in every now and again regarding the longest-tenured black justice serving on the court.

A report this month by the left-leaning outlet Pro Publica alleged billionaire Harlan Crow, a GOP donor,  provided trips and gifts to Thomas that were not disclosed.

Following that report, other liberal media outlets have tried to make specious links between Thomas and other gifts from friends that they suddenly find scandalous.

Thomas, following allegations of impropriety, explained slowly and carefully to those wondering, that the gifts in question were from close personal friends and, as they “did not have business before the Court” it “was not reportable.”

He said he would amend his financial disclosure forms to comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month.

RELATED: Liberal Group Publishes Home Addresses Of Supreme Court Justices, Calls For Protests

Roberts Often Sides With the Left

It’s good to see Roberts stand up to Durbin, a rare morphing from a spineless jellyfish patsy for the Democrats to somebody finally showing a modicum of intestinal fortitude.

Think about it – Roberts has spent the vast majority of his time as Chief Justice abandoning his principles and voting intentionally with the liberal wing of the Court as a means to convey an image of fairness.

His lone goal is to create a legacy of a court not swayed by politics, but rather, guided by the law. And he’s been more than eager to side with the left to create that faux ethical image.

And Durbin has the gall to question the ethics of his court?

In June of 2020, Roberts cast the deciding vote, joining the court’s liberal justices in a 5-4 decision that ruled against the Trump administration’s bid to end the DACA program, despite it having been implemented illegally.

That same year he sided with the liberal court justices, ruling in favor of coronavirus restrictions on religious services in the state of California.

He ruled alongside liberals yet again in a ruling that struck down a Louisiana abortion safety law.

There are so many other cases in which Roberts abandoned the rule of law to cast his lot with the left just to seem impartial.

How bad must Durbin’s circus request be that even he would stand up and say, ‘No, this is a bit too much.’

Roberts though, does have a bit of a history of being irked by Democrats for daring to question the legitimacy of his Supreme Court.

He became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Fox News reported at the time that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

We imagine he had the same look while writing the letter to Durbin.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics appeared first on The Political Insider.

Greene silencing leads to new pledges of civility

The silencing of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar in a hearing has led to a pledge for a more civil House Homeland Security Committee going forward — a standard lawmakers may struggle to meet as they gear up for the secretary’s impeachment. 

When Mayorkas appeared before Congress this week, Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) accused him of intentional disruption at the border and said his answers to prior questions show “incompetence.” Rep. Clay Higgins told Mayorkas it was “shameful what you brought upon our country.” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused him of being smug. 

Numerous lawmakers accused him of lying before Congress — an argument both Mayorkas and Democrats refute.

But while others accused Mayorkas of being dishonest, Greene on Wednesday explicitly labeled him a liar, something Green determined violated House rules on impugning someone’s character. 

A hearing that began with a fiery opening statement from Green ended with a call to “dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.” 

“We don’t have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don’t have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” he said in closing the hearing.

It was a commitment he made after a sidebar with ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who repeatedly described the panel's discourse that day as unbecoming for a committee with such a serious jurisdiction.  

Whether that moment can be met already appears in doubt for a committee that contains many members eager to impeach Mayorkas — a process that involves holding him personally responsible for the Biden administration’s approach to the border. 

Green was chastised early in the meeting by Democrats, who pointed to a story in The New York Times reporting he told donors to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.

And Republicans on the panel have offered mixed assessments of whether they believe the tone of the hearing was inappropriate. 

Greene called the decision to silence her for the rest of the hearing unfair, noting that numerous Republican speakers before her accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, even if they did not label him as a liar directly. 

“These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules. I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee,” she said.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said calling someone a liar is “poor form,” but that doing so is justified in regards to Mayorkas.

“They have been provoked to engage with Secretary Mayorkas in very severe terms,” he said of some of his colleagues. “And there's a reason for it.”

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), however, suggested the committee members take a softer approach in their language if not in their stance, pointing to specific passages from the Bible that guide him. 

“We can be unwavering without compromise, and also be gentle and reasonable. And so it hangs on my wall. It's hidden in my heart. And that's who I want to be as a legislator,” he said, pointing to James 3:17.

“I can disagree with someone and disagree with them heartily. And that's what makes our nation great is we have raucous debates, right? But I also want people to know that I love them and that the way I behold them in my subconscious is not through hatred, it is through love towards them as an individual who's made in the image of God.”

Mayorkas is no stranger to heated rhetoric. At one point last year during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, one lawmaker compared him to Benedict Arnold, suggesting he was a traitor to the country. And numerous senators this week likewise attacked his character, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking whether he had “an ounce of human compassion” about the situation at the border. 

At an event Friday, Mayorkas lamented the approach of lawmakers who criticize his character. 

“They are not easy to listen to,” he said of the insults. “They also have ramifications that I wish individuals in positions of leadership would consider.”

“I am fundamentally — fundamentally though — I’m impervious to them. Because I may make some mistakes. My decisions may be mistaken. Some may disagree with them, but I have 100 percent confidence in the integrity of my decision,” Mayorkas said in response to a question from The Hill during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Several Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to dismiss the budding impeachment argument from the GOP.

“They can disagree with him on policy, but that is not a high crime and misdemeanor, nor does it in any way violate the Constitution and has no grounds for impeachment,” Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said while many colleagues offered similar remarks to Greene, her comments have received the most attention, undercutting the effort to focus on Mayorkas.

“I think most of the Republicans are saying the same thing. I think most Republicans were calling [the] secretary names, belittling him and not allowing him to speak, insinuating that he was lying — all things which are false,” Garcia told The Hill.

“Republicans are focused — and they were clear — even in the chairman's comments at the fundraiser that he had, that he expected today to be a circus, he expected today to be kind of a made-for-TV event, which is how they planned it. And I think it backfired on them,” he said Wednesday. 

Green has said he was misquoted in the Times article, though he did not specify how, and noted the impeachment process will ultimately fall to the House Judiciary Committee. 

The nearly 20-minute delay in challenging Greene’s comments was a source of embarrassment for some on the committee. Thompson warned the division on display is poor signaling to adversaries who keep tabs on internal dynamics in the U.S. 

“Our charge as a committee is to keep the homeland safe from foreign as well as domestic terrorists,” he said.

“And if they see a committee tasked with that responsibility acting like we did today, you're saying, ‘Well, look, we don't have to worry anymore since it’s going off the rails.’”

Green told The Hill that going forward committee members need to “just attack the problem. You don’t attack the person.”

But he sees the issue as one on both sides of the aisle, adding that “There better not be any of either side breaking the rules of decorum,” in a nod to a sign brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) criticizing Greene’s effort to defund the FBI. 

Greene made a similar argument, saying Thompson chaired a committee that impugned her character.

“Bennie Thompson has used his position, especially his chairmanship on the Jan. 6 committee, to literally call Republicans names every single day impugning our character, me specifically,” she said, adding that Democrats have called her an insurrectionist.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said he appreciated the efforts at the end of the hearing to “rein it back in,” but said whether Green can ultimately do so remains to be seen.

“It varies from different Republican members. I think for some of them, this is the raison d'etre. They're going for more quotes, more tweets, more sales, more dollars raised on the internet. They're not going to change,” he said.

“The chairman and some of the other members, I hope that they will step back from that precipice and we can actually get back to doing some reasonable work.”

Mayorkas says administration to announce plans to address expected border surge

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.

Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer

By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations

In New York City, if the newcomers aren’t put up at the luxury cruise terminal that served the QE2, they could get $700-a-night midtown hotel accommodations with iconic Manhattan viewsIn Chicago, they found themselves whisked to suburban lodgings. In Denver, officials refer to them discreetly as “guests” and you needn’t bother inquiring about their inns or addresses.  

The people enjoying these free digs aren’t privacy-conscious jet-setters, but the secrecy surrounding them might be comparable: They’re some of the millions of migrants who have illegally crossed into the U.S. since the Biden administration relaxed most border controls.

RELATED: Nearly 270,000 Apprehensions, Gotaways at Southern Border in March

No one knows exactly how many people have poured across the southwestern U.S. border since President Biden took office, or where they’ve gone since. The official number of encounters by Customs and Border Patrol stands at 5.2 million people, logged over the last two full federal fiscal years and fiscal 2023 through March. But that number is imprecise because it includes repeat encounters with the same people and omits the many who slipped into the country unnoticed by border agents.  

Under President Biden, the U.S. smashed past the 200,000 monthly encounters mark for the first time in July 2021 and it has repeatedly topped that record in the months since. By comparison, in fiscal 2020, which ended a month before Biden’s defeat of President Trump, the U.S. averaged 38,174 monthly encounters at the border, according to CBP figures.  

Earlier: Why Hasn’t the GOP Impeached Mayorkas Yet? 

Because of an official lack of transparency, all those people and the circumstances by which they have arrived and remained have made it hard to take stock of the historic influx. Through midnight flights and buses from the border to far-flung locales, the administration has made it difficult to identify where the migrants are now living and receiving services. Also unclear are the costs associated with the arrivals.  

But flares have been sent up – especially over immigrant sanctuary cities like New York, Denver and Chicago, which have long promised to house migrants. While those cities are providing housing and other services for a small fraction of the recent migrants, the costs are significant for these budget-strapped metropolises.

Denver plans to spend $20 million in the first six months of this year to provide housing to migrants. Officials say this works out to between $800 and $1,000 per week per person.   

In January the state of Illinois turned down Chicago’s request for more funds, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response” – or roughly $33,000 per migrant.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending at between $2 billion and $3 billion.     

Other data points of the opaque costs of Biden-era illegal immigration include Massachusetts’ estimate that it will need $28 million to launch a program to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented residents. The state is seeking a share of the omnibus spending bill passed by Democrats in December 2022 when they controlled both houses of Congress, which included $800 million for cities grappling with the influx.  

RELATED: Biden to Open Up Medicaid, Obamacare to About 700,000 Illegal Immigrants

These numbers are incomplete in part because it is hard to separate the added cost of recent migrants from costs for the millions of undocumented immigrants who were in the country before the recent surge.  

A March study by the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that, after accounting for taxes paid by undocumented migrants, they cost taxpayers over $150 billion per year – a 30% increase since 2017.  

Yet FAIR acknowledges the problem of fixing costs has become more difficult, given the record-breaking numbers of illegal crossers in the past two and a half years and efforts by some government agencies to mask their spending.  

“We often had to grapple with a paucity of easily accessible official data,” the report notes. “Many state and federal entities do not publish detailed data that they collect, making it difficult to reliably separate illegal aliens from citizens of lawful immigrants. We have also encountered cases where the current administration has revoked or restricted documents published by previous administrations in order to reduce the visibility of data which shines a negative light on their immigration policy agenda.”

Those totals also involve far more than simple food and board. To arrive at its staggering sum, FAIR includes estimates of the costs in education, health care and law enforcement.  

“The irony is not only are these sanctuary jurisdictions turning to Washington with their hands out, but that they still refuse to join with governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis in demanding that the federal government take decisive steps to stanch the influx of new migrants,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman told RealClearInvestigations, referring to the Republican chief executives of Texas and Florida, respectively. “The obvious hypocrisy of declaring yourself a sanctuary jurisdiction while complaining about the costs and burdens associated with it are undeniable.”

Groups that favor more relaxed border security measures, such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the American Immigration Council, did not respond to RCI’s request for comment; the liberal Brookings Institution declined to comment. 

RELATED: Illegal Immigration is Surging… Across the Northern Border, Now

Cities housing many migrants have a hard time estimating costs. New York Mayor Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending one time at $2 billion and another time at $3 billion. Those are the sorts of bills New York has racked up putting what they call “asylum seekers” or “migrants” in hotels.

And Adams, whose requests sometimes include the claim “we are all in this together,” wants to spend even more. This month, he floated the idea of paying college tuition for illegal immigrants if they attend New York state schools outside the city.

Using Adams’ own number of some 40,000 illegal immigrants that New York City has foot the bills for, it means taxpayers are spending roughly $150,000 per person to host new arrivals. In March, City Hall scaled back its count of the number of its immigrants to 12,700, which meant the taxpayers’ were spending nearly $5 million a day to take care of them, according to a New York Post analysis.  

The Office of the New York City Public Advocate, which helps immigrants navigate the benefits available to them, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Adams declined to address questions about spending, pointing instead to various links the city maintains for immigrants and noting the city has expanded a New York County Supreme Court decision in 1981 regarding shelter for homeless people to cover immigrants.   

Whatever the current official number of illegal immigrants New York is dealing with it is but a fraction of those that have poured into various Texas communities along the border.   

Officials at El Paso’s City Hall, one of the ground zeroes in the illegal immigration crush, did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment on its spending. But Gov. Abbott said his Operation Lone Star, launched in March 2021, has “allocated more than $4 billion to do the federal government’s job and secure the border,” Abbott’s spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said.   

It was Abbott who began busing illegal immigrants to some of the sanctuary cities that declare themselves so welcoming, such as New York, Denver and Chicago.

RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’

“Texas began busing migrants to sanctuary cities last April to provide relief to our overrun and overwhelmed border communities,” Mahaleris said. “Mayors Adams, [Muriel] Bowser and [Lori] Lightfoot were all too happy to tout their sanctuary city statuses until Texas bused over 16,900 migrants, collectively, to their self-declared sanctuary. Instead of complaining about dealing with a fraction of the border crisis Texas communities see every day, these hypocrites should call on President Biden to take immediate action to secure the border – something the president continues failing to do.”  

Lightfoot, departing as mayor of Chicago after her defeat in February, first turned to Illinois for millions to help the Windy City cope with its several thousand illegal immigrants Texas provided. In January, however, the state turned her down, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response.”  

That response came last September when Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued an “emergency disaster proclamation.” His proclamation and the words of other state leaders presented a schizophrenic picture in which they portray Illinois as a “welcoming beacon of hope” and complain they weren’t given “official advance warning.”

Most of the money Illinois spent – more than $61.5 million, or roughly $31,000 per immigrant – went to contracts with organizations or staff “who provided on site case management and other services at multiple locations.”  

Illinois dropped another $8 million on “interim housing,” nearly $4 million on “health screenings for asylum seekers, and more than $29 million on “hotel, transportation and housing costs,” according to their breakdown.  

Nowhere did Pritzker or Lightfoot question the wisdom of the Biden administration ‘s border policies, and there was no indication they understood the burdens that had been put on border cities and states. Instead, the unmistakable message was that if illegal immigrants were going to be sent where the “welcoming beacon” shone, other people should pay for it.

RELATED: Rio Grande Border Patrol Agents Assaulted While Apprehending Illegal Aliens

“They can say all that is for free, but now they’re finding out they can’t have a welfare society and an open border,” said Lora Reis, the director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Denver held a budget “transparency and equity” meeting earlier this month at which Chief Financial Officer Margaret Danuser said the city will have spent between $17 and $20 million on housing and other services for between 5,000 and 6,000 illegal immigrants between Dec. 2022 and this June. The city hoped to get federal taxpayers to reimburse it for $2.8 million, and a Colorado state fund for another $3.5 million.

Those figures show Denver spent about the same as Chicago at roughly $33,000 per immigrant, costs that are still far below New York City’s. 

“None of these sanctuary mayors or governors have ever asked for a secure border, it was always just, ‘feds, give us money!’” said Reis. “They can say all that for free, but they are finding out you can’t have a welfare system and an open border.”

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer appeared first on The Political Insider.

Heated GOP grilling of Mayorkas leads to pledge to ‘dial the rhetoric down’

Republicans gave a preview Wednesday of a still materializing impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, zeroing in on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.

But what started as a fiery hearing filled with attacks on Mayorkas ended with promises to tone down the rhetoric and move towards civility in the House Homeland Security Committee — a panel with numerous members who have pledged to remove the secretary from office.

The GOP on Wednesday repeatedly referenced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that defines operational control as achieved when there is not a single unlawful entry of either migrants or drugs at the border. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and other Republicans played numerous clips of Mayorkas previously answering questions about whether he has maintained operational control of the border — a tactic that comes after Green reportedly told donors at a fundraiser to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of the hearing.

Green rattled off a series of policies rolled out under the Biden administration, including the rescission of some Trump-era policies, though the current administration has alienated immigration advocates by retaining others. 

“You have not secured our borders, Mr. Secretary, and I believe you've done so intentionally. There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border,” he said. 

Several Republicans on the committee, including Green, leveled a series of accusations against Mayorkas, using their full five minutes for speeches, without asking questions of Mayorkas or allowing him to respond.

“I have no interest in asking the secretary any questions because he obfuscates and lies,” said  Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) after arguing Mayorkas had “failed your country.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the committee, defended Mayorkas, pointing to reporting from The New York Times about Green’s comments to donors.

“I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today's hearing the Chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn. It's going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know about the Republican agenda here,” Thompson said.

“They don't want solutions to homeland security challenges. They want to make a headline or photo opp. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together to get things done.”

Green later said the article misquoted him. He did not specify how but detailed he has no power to impeach Mayorkas, noting such a move would fall to the House Judiciary Committee and that his role is limited to oversight.

Republicans used much of the hearing to dissect Mayorkas’s previous statements on operational control of the border.

Mayorkas has repeatedly maintained he has control of the border, but the GOP has seized on prior comments from Border Patrol Chief Raúl Ortiz who answered “no” when asked if the department was meeting the high standard set under the Secure Fence Act.

It was a line Green said “told the truth” about the situation at the border.

Mayorkas on Wednesday said he was previously cut off by lawmakers from giving nuance to earlier answers, arguing the law leaves much discretion to the secretary in determining how to manage the border while the standard itself has never been met.

“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it's for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.

“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”

Democrats took turns defending Mayorkas.

Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) accused Republicans of having “such short memories … with respect to the situation at the Southern border.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) rattled off a list of Trump-era policies, including family separation, prompting Mayorkas to say they not only failed to achieve operational control but “disobeyed our values as a country.”

Thompson turned to the archives, citing comments from GOP lawmakers from when the Secure Fence Act was first passed, citing concerns over the standard it set, including Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a member of the committee who worked on the legislation.

“When you put this number as a metric in the definition of operational control, you make it impossible to achieve operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good,” McCaul said at the time, according to a portion of the transcript read aloud by Thompson.

Republicans, however, took issue with Mayorakas’s explanation, arguing the secretary has no right to interpret the laws passed by Congress.

“Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).  “Who are you to displace the legal definition of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing one of your own invention?”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who played a central role in the impeachment of then-President Trump, later pounced on Bishop’s phrasing.

“I have a little experience with impeachment and I can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. And there is absolutely nothing that I've seen here today that amounts to a false statement under oath,” he said.

“In fact, Mr. Bishop, my colleague, in referencing operational control and that standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an impossible standard.”

Other Republicans sought to hold Mayorkas accountable with other methods.

One lawmaker brought a series of charts with multiple questions. Two others brought guests to the hearing, including parents of children that had died of a fentanyl overdose and the family of victims who died after a man carrying migrants crashed into their car while seeking to evade police in a high-speed chase. 

The committee’s proceedings came to an almost 20-minute standstill following comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accusing Mayorkas of lying.

Green agreed to a motion from Democrats to take down her words, ultimately resulting in the loss of her speaking privileges during the hearing.

It was a complex turn of events given that many Republicans at prior points in the hearing accused Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress, though none, as Greene did, labeled him a liar.

Still, the hearing ended on a tone much different from how it started, with Thompson and Green both speaking to the need to maintain decorum during proceedings.

Thompson said the two men had "sidebarred" about the language used, noting other nations keep tabs on Congressional proceedings — “our adversaries look at us,” he warned.

“You and I pledge that going forward, we'll make every effort to get back to the civility that this committee has been known for,” Thompson said.

Green echoed that in his own closing remarks.

“I agree with the former chairman, now ranking member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. And we don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” Green said. 

“And we do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”

GOP senator floats no confidence vote as Mayorkas defends border response

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials were on the defensive Tuesday as Senate Republicans became more vocal about their efforts to back impeachment for the secretary.

Mayorkas’s appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee sparked the usual heated exchanges and personal attacks now common in such forums, but the GOP posture escalated as Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) pledged to soon introduce a vote of no confidence resolution for the secretary.

House efforts to launch an impeachment of Mayorkas have been simmering for some time, with GOP lawmakers arguing he has failed to successfully manage the border amid an uptick in migration. But an official inquiry has yet to be launched, and those efforts have recently taken a back seat to debt ceiling talks.

But Marshall on Tuesday suggested a need to buoy that process in the Senate, where it is expected to make little progress given the Democratic majority.

“I stand at the ready to receive articles of impeachment from the House and conduct an impeachment trial in this body,” Marshall said. “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.”

Mayorkas at one point attempted to respond, asking to take a point of personal privilege, but Marshall objected, saying, “I want you to answer my questions, not give me lectures.”

Mayorkas, given an opportunity by the next speaker, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), declined to respond. 

“I just want to take a moment to ask my colleagues here today to treat the secretary with the respect he deserves,” Carper said, noting Mayorkas’s integrity, work ethic and dedication to a complex job.

“I was raised — my guess is most of the folks in this committee were raised — to treat other people the way we want to be treated. I wouldn't treat anybody the way that I've seen you treated before in other committees and again here by at least one of our colleagues today.”

At other turns during the hearing, GOP lawmakers sought to hold Mayorkas personally responsible for various issues at the border.

"Do you not care? Do you not just have an ounce of human compassion for what your open border policy, the kind of human deprivation it is causing?” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

Mayorkas would later defend the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to stem migratory flows, pointing to a program that largely blocks nationals from Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba from seeking asylum but allows those with U.S. sponsors to apply to enter the U.S.

Various GOP lawmakers zeroed in on a recent New York Times article delving into the extent Biden administration officials were aware unaccompanied children were being trafficked into child labor.

The care of children who arrive at the border without their parents spans multiple agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for vetting the sponsors who ultimately care for them.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has also called for Mayorkas’s resignation, accused Mayorkas of “pressuring officials and agencies to skip the vetting process and get these kids out as soon as possible to sponsors who weren't vetted.”

The Times story does not reference Mayorkas and primarily focuses on the roles of HHS and high-ranking White House officials in the matter.

“Senator, I look forward to discussing this issue further because you are misstating the facts so terribly,” Mayorkas responded.

Mayorkas also shot back when Hawley accused him of letting thousands of children into the country to be exploited, pointing to a Trump-era policy of separating parents from their children.

“It is stunning to me, stunning, to hear you say that the prior administration reunited children with their parents,” Mayorkas said.

Mayorkas at another point said lawmakers, including Johnson, were “disparagingly mischaracterizes our commitment to address trafficking and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, including children."

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) offered a defense of Mayorkas and DHS, saying that senators must not forget the role of corporations hiring the migrant child labor outlined in the Times investigation.

"It is the employers breaking child labor laws,” Padilla said. “We should not misplace the blame here."

Mayorkas was one of several officials called before Congress on Tuesday to discuss immigration-related matters. 

HHS officials appeared before both the House’s Energy and Commerce and Oversight committees, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tae Johnson appeared before House appropriators.

Much of the discussion with Johnson surrounded the number of detention beds funded through the ICE budget, a figure that determines the extent the agency is able to house people in detention centers versus other means of supervision. President Biden’s budget cut detention capacity by about a quarter.

At various points during the hearing, Johnson said he would like to see funding for a greater number of beds than covered in the budget but acknowledged that the agency simply would not be able to detain all those who may be slated for deportation.

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said that would undercut the administration’s ability to remove people from the country as their immigration cases work their way through the court system.

“If it's easier to remove people once they're in detention, and you've agreed with that, and I agree with that, but yet we have a budget which is actually shrinking detention beds. I find that counterproductive,” Guest said.

“As these additional cases work their way through the system, we're going to see those numbers grow exponentially. And it just doesn't seem to me that we either don't have the resources or we don't have the policies in place to enforce the law.”

Johnson said even when the agency has rapidly expanded the number of beds in the past “we filled those beds up in no time.”

“So I personally don't think there's a number of beds that you can actually buy that's going to solve this problem that we're seeing,” he said.

At another point, Johnson was asked about the agency’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit, which works to combat cartels and other transnational crime.

Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) pointed to reporting that HSI staff at one point proposed separating from ICE, arguing the agency’s reputation made it difficult to carry out their work.

Johnson said he opposes siphoning off the unit, but backs giving them “flexibility” to minimize their affiliation with ICE, saying efforts like removing the “ICE” part of their email address has proven helpful.

“One of the things we did this year was to give HSI the flexibility to use whatever branding they felt was necessary to increase cooperation in the communities. So in other words, if removing the ICE moniker completely and just using the HSI brand was going to result in greater cooperation, they had the flexibility to do so,” he said.

But Underwood said those moves failed to address the underlying problem.

“ICE has the responsibility to proactively and intentionally build trust in the communities that you serve,” she said.

“And so I think that this is an area where the agency definitely needs to do more.”

Nick Robertson contributed reporting

Updated: 2:28 p.m.

GOP Drafts Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Austin for Afghan Disaster

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

U.S. Rep. Cory Mills, R-Florida, told Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last week that he was drafting articles of impeachment against him for “dereliction of duty.”

Mills cited the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that put the Taliban back in power, led to the death of 13 service members, left thousands of Americans and Afghan allies behind, and left $83 billion worth of military training equipment, weapons and ammunition to U.S. enemies.

RELATED: Biden Admin Admits Over 100 Americans Still Left Behind in Afghanistan

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing held on March 29 on oversight of the U.S. Defense Department budget, Mills, an Army combat veteran and Bronze Star recipient, told Austin he’d already drafted articles of impeachment against him and planned “to hold him accountable.”

Mills asked Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were both called to testify before the committee, “If an officer has a dereliction of duty, there are many articles which could remove him for that reasoning, is that correct?” They both replied in the affirmative.

He said his understanding of the definition of dereliction of duty “is a person’s purposeful or accidental failure to perform his obligations. Would we agree with that?” Austin shook his head in the affirmative.

“There’s also willful dereliction of duty,” Mills continued, “which in my opinion is nothing more than a failure through negligence.”

Mills addressed Austin directly, stating, “We have seen where we have failed to secure a status of forces agreement during Iraq withdrawal, which has now allowed ISIS to retake key locations in Baghdad. We have Afghanistan in control of the Taliban … with billions of dollars in weapons, armament, defense articles, millions of dollars in cash, thereby actually creating probably one of the most well-funded and well-positioned terrorist organizations in the world. Even though our intent in going into Afghanistan was actually to stop it from being a safe haven of terrorism.”

Mills cited U.S. foreign policy failures in the Middle East, saying they were personal because of his combat service and because before he was elected to Congress he helped “conduct one of the very first successful overland rescues of Americans who were left behind in this botched withdrawal.”

He also cited an example of a sergeant who could have taken out a suicide bomber in Afghanistan and saved American lives but there were escalation of force or rules of engagement not allowing him to do so, Mills said. “The idea of being deployed and going down without an escalation of force or clear rules of engagement even after receiving a BOLO identifying the target is a failure in leadership,” Mills said, looking Austin directly in the eye.

RELATED: Afghan Reconstruction Inspector Believes US Destined to Repeat Mistakes in Ukraine

“In my opinion, this is willful,” he added. “That is why Secretary Austin not only do I believe that you should have resigned,” but his actions constituted “a dereliction of duty.”

“I take that very seriously, especially for our armed service members and those who are looking for accountability as a result of this botched withdrawal,” he continued. … “I’ve already drafted my articles of impeachment for dereliction of duty.”

U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, was next called to speak but first asked Austin if he wanted to respond to Mills’ comments. Austin replied by saying, “The congressman is certainly entitled to his opinion.” He then looked at Mills and said, “We all thank you for your service. I don’t take a back bench when it comes to patriotism, devotion to our cause here, protection to our troops.”

Appearing to be taken off guard, Austin began his response calmly but his tone escalated to appear to be combative, saying, “In the short 41 years that I spent in uniform, … almost six years of that was in a combat zone. So, I get it. I commanded Bagram Airforce Base so I know a little bit about Bagram Airforce Base. But again, you’re welcome to your opinion and so I’ll leave it at that.”

On the day of the hearing, Mills published a short statement, saying, “When we had the chance, our leadership blew it. Sergeant Major Vargas-Andrews had the bomber in his sight, and in my view, it was a failure of leadership that he was not given the OK to take him down. This is not about politics; this is about accountability. That is why I drafted articles of impeachment to hold Secretary Lloyd Austin accountable for his dereliction of duty.

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post GOP Drafts Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Austin for Afghan Disaster appeared first on The Political Insider.