Posted on February 19, 2024

Impeachment Case Should Matter, But It Won’t

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 19, 2024

Subscribe to future audio versions of AmRen articles here.

President Joe Biden has not hidden his intentions on immigration. In one infamous 2015 video, he bragged about an “unrelenting stream of immigration” that will turn whites into a minority. Sitting next to him while he said this was current Department of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The DHS secretary is a former board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which exists to move migrants into the United States at taxpayer expense. His intentions are hardly surprising either.

Congressional Republicans successfully impeached Secretary Mayorkas last week, winning by one vote. The HIAS says “dangerous conspiracies” are behind the effort. Former ADL chairman Abraham Foxman took to Time to denounce “antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories.” Vice said the “far right” is celebrating the impeachment, driven by “proponents of the ‘great replacement’ theory.” Of course, one way to prove that “theory” would simply be to replay Joe Biden saying that nothing will stop immigration until whites are a minority, while Mr. Mayorkas smiles next to him.

However, the case Republicans actually make against the DHS secretary is careful, legalistic, and restrained. If the rule of law existed and public officials were interested in protecting the national interest, Secretary Mayorkas would probably be convicted by the Senate. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a country. Still, the articles of impeachment are worth reading just to know what is at stake.

The case made by the articles accuses Secretary Mayorkas of having “repeatedly violated laws enacted by Congress regarding immigration and border security,” with millions of illegals having entered the country “in large part because of his illegal conduct.” It directly accuses him of “refusing” to obey the law.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, left, and acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller, right. (Credit Image: © Tia Dufour/Cbp Photos/Planet Pix via ZUMA Press Wire)

Specifically, it charges that Secretary Mayorkas “willfully refused to comply with the detention mandate set forth in Section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act” which says aliens must be detained before removal proceedings. “Instead of complying with this requirement, Alejandro N. Mayorkas implemented a catch and release scheme, whereby such aliens are unlawfully released, even without effective mechanisms to ensure appearances before the immigration courts for removal proceedings or to ensure removal in the case of aliens ordered removed.” By the end of 2023, the backlog for immigration courts was about three million people (presumably more now), which is why President Donald Trump had implemented the Remain in Mexico policy in the first place. This was one of the first things President Joe Biden reversed, fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to do so.

The articles further charge Secretary Mayorkas with willfully refusing to comply with the detention mandate in Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), which says aliens in expedited removal proceedings “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” Again, Secretary Mayorkas implemented a “catch and release scheme” instead. Congress also said this violates 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), which says aliens that are determined not to have a credible fear of persecution must be detained. Again, the “catch and release scheme” violates the law. Essentially, the Secretary of Homeland Security has refused to detain aliens before hearings.

Section 236(c) of the Act says that aliens who cannot be admitted into the United States because of issues related to criminal justice or terrorism must be taken into custody once released by law enforcement. However, DHS has issued guidelines saying that just because someone is a removable noncitizen should not be the basis of action, and that even a conviction should not force agents to detain aliens theoretically subject to mandatory arrest and detention. According to the 2022 ruling United States v. Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said that such guidelines have created a new policy so “extreme” that it amounts to an “abdication” of “statutory responsibilities.” The articles of impeachment particularly note that DHS had replaced Congress’s mandates with “concerns of equity and race,” exceeding its powers.

The “conservative” Supreme Court has since reversed United States v. Texas 8-1, arguing that Texas cannot challenge the federal government’s immigration policies. This led conservatives back to the familiar territory that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws, but the White House refuses to do so. The only measure left is for Congress to impeach White House officials, but this, too, the White House calls “unconstitutional.” However, as the case notes on page 14, the Supreme Court directed Congress to use its own powers to check the White House. “Here, in light of the inability of injured parties [states] to seek judicial relief to remedy the refusal of Alejandro N. Mayorkas to comply with Federal immigration laws, impeachment is Congress’s only viable option.”

According to section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA, parole is only to be granted on a case-by-case basis, but Secretary Mayorkas “paroled aliens en masse in order to release them from mandatory detention.” He is also accused of inventing, reopening, or expanding categorial parole programs “never authorized by Congress” in order to admit aliens from various countries, “which enabled hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens to enter the United States in violation of the laws enacted by Congress.”

According to Section 236(a) of the Immigration and National Act, the Secretary has the power to release aliens arrested on an “administrative warrant.” In order to use this more broadly, the Secretary was “retroactively issuing administrative warrants in an attempt to circumvent section 235(b)(2) of such Act,” in what a US District Court called a “sleight of hand” and “administrative sophistry at its worst.”

The consequences, as detailed by the impeachment case, were that the aliens encountered as inadmissible at ports of entry increased from 590,000 aliens each fiscal year from 2017–2020 (under President Trump), up to 1,400,000 in fiscal year 2021, over 2,300,000 in fiscal year 2022, and over 2,400,000 in fiscal year 2023. About 130,000 illegals a year on average entered the country without being detained or turned back from 2017–2020. “[T]hat number more than trebled to 400,000 in fiscal year 2021, 600,000 in fiscal year 2022, and 750,000 in fiscal year 2023,” says the case.

The impeachment case also argues that “American communities both along the Southwest border and across the United States have been devastated by the dramatic growth in illegal entries, the number of aliens unlawfully present, and substantial rise in the number of aliens unlawfully granted parole, creating a fiscal and humanitarian crisis and dramatically degrading the quality of life of the residents of those communities.” The case highlights New York City, along with the complaints of Mayor Eric Adams that the city is past “our breaking point.”

Furthermore, because of the lack of enforcement, the number of illegals dying while trying to enter the United States increased from about 700 people to about 1,300 people a year from fiscal year 2021 through 2023. The number of unaccompanied children sent north has also increased, with about 450,000 during Biden’s tenure. The case argues that “alien smuggling organizations have gained tremendous wealth,” with estimated revenues rising from about $500 million in 2018 to approximately $13 trillion in 2022. The backlog for immigration courts has more than doubled, with Secretary Mayorkas himself admitting that migrants often wait years for a court date, assuming they even intend to show up. Nonetheless, he apparently thinks the best way to solve this problem is further to overload the system.

The articles have a lot to say about fentanyl. The amount seized by the Border Patrol increased from about 4,800 pounds in 2020 to 27,000 pounds in fiscal year 2023. More than 70,000 Americans died from fentanyl in 2022, and it is the number-one killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. The number of aliens encountered who were on the Terrorist Watch List has also increased. Even as these crises build, Border Patrol agents have been diverted from law enforcement to processing illegal aliens and releasing them into the country.

“In all of this,” the case says, “Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully and systemically refused to comply with the immigration laws, failed to control the border to the detriment of national security, compromised public safety, and violated the rule of law and separation of powers in the Constitution, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

The charges accuse him of lying: that the border is “no less secure than it was previously,” that it is “closed,” and that the government has “operational control.” The articles argue further that he made false statements to Congress about vetting of Afghan refugees, that apprehended aliens with no legal basis to remain were being quickly removed, that US Border Patrol agents were whipping illegal aliens, and that he ignored subpoenas and delayed or denied access to DHS records.

Critically, the case says that Secretary Mayorkas, despite being advised of the consequences, terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols, border wall construction, and asylum cooperative agreements that would have prevented or reduced the border surge.

It concludes:

In all of this, Alejandro N. Mayorkas breached the public trust by knowingly making false statements to Congress and the American people and avoiding lawful oversight in order to obscure the devastating consequences of his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and carry out his statutory duties. He has also breached the public trust by willfully refusing to carry out his statutory duty to control the border and guard against illegal entry, notwithstanding the calamitous consequences of his abdication of that duty.

Wherefore Alejandro N. Mayorkas, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national and border security, the safety of the American people, and to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Alejandro N. Mayorkas thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Unfortunately, none of this matters. The White House plans on mostly ignoring the battle, relying on advocacy groups to take the fight to the Republicans and charge that it is the GOP that does not want to solve the border crisis. The Republicans’ baffling attempt to move forward with yet another amnesty bill a few weeks ago was an unforced assist to the Democrats. President Biden said that “history will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games.” Indeed, he tried to defend the Secretary by calling him a “Cuban immigrant who came to the United States with his family as political refugees,” an attempt to cloak the DHS Secretary as a victim. The President thus unwittingly showed that the man in charge of Homeland Security has little connection to the United States and an interest in lowering barriers to mass immigration. Not surprisingly, Senate Democrats, including the supposed “moderate” Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), are eager to dismiss the charges and skip a trial.

The secretary will be swiftly acquitted. No changes will be made, and the invasion will continue. Still, the charges speak for themselves. They show that the “rule of law” no longer counts for much. They are a useful reminder for American citizens about the way our rulers view us. While the government demands our loyalty, sacrifice, and money to defend “Our Democracy” and the “rules-based international order,” it will not carry out even its most basic responsibilities. It needs to be reminded that loyalty must go two ways.