Mayorkas Impeachment About Constitutional Crimes, Not Policy

Mayorkas Impeachment About Constitutional Crimes, Not ‘Policy

By Joe Guzzardi

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ impeachment has set off a barrage of error-infused stories which prove that print and broadcast journalists haven’t done their homework. Echoing the talking points of the three House Republicans that voted against Mayorkas’ impeachment, the nearly universal story line is that policy differences don’t merit his removal from the Cabinet.

Here’s how The New York Times described the vote: “It[impeachment] put Mr. Mayorkas in the company of past presidents and administration officials who have been impeached on allegations of personal corruption and other wrongdoing. But the charges against him broke with history by failing to identify any such offense, instead effectively declaring the policy choices Mr. Mayorkas has carried out a constitutional crime.”

The Times went on to further defend Mayorkas when it wrote that former DHS secretaries Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Charles Johnson labeled the House effort “groundless,”while the Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, and several law experts denounced the impeachment as a blatant attempt to resolve a policy dispute with a constitutional punishment. All claimed that the House Republicans had presented no evidence that Mr. Mayorkas’s conduct rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard for impeachment the Constitution requires.

The three Republicans who voted against impeachment reiterated the same narrative—Mayorkas committed no crimes; he just enacted policies that the House disagreed with. The dissenters are Ken Buck (Color.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Mike Gallagher (Wis.). Explaining their decisions, Buck said “maladministration or incompetence does not rise to what our founders considered an impeachable offense;” McClintock claimed that Republicans lacked the grounds to impeach, and Gallagher, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed wrote that “incompetence doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.” 

Had the House dissenters, Republican and Democrats alike, read H. Res. 863 Article I: “Willful and Systematic Refusal to Comply with the Law,” they may have come to a different conclusion. The resolution charged Mayorkas with violating hissworn constitutional oath to support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to well and faithfully discharge his office’s duties of his office. Mayorkashas willfully and systemically refused to comply with federal immigration laws. 

More from the Resolution: Throughout his tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Mayorkas has repeatedly violated laws enacted by Congress regarding immigration and border security. In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining in the United States. His refusal to obey the law is not only an offense against the Constitution’sseparation of powers, it also threatens our national security and has had a dire impact on communities nationwide. Despite clear evidence that his willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law has significantly contributed to unprecedented levels of illegal entrants, the increased control of the Southwest border by drug cartels, and the imposition of enormous costs on states and localities affected by the influx of aliens, Mayorkas has continued to act against U.S. interests. 

Specifically, the Resolution identified seven Mayorkas crimes, all impeachable offenses. Among them, he 1) refused to comply with the detention mandate included in section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and instead implemented catch and release; 2) refused to comply with the detention mandate set forth in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act, requiring that an alien who is placed into expedited removal proceedings and determined to have a credible fear of persecution “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” and 3) willfully exceeded his parole authority set forth in section 212(d)(5)(A) of such Act that permits parole to be granted “only on a case-by-case basis”, temporarily, and “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Instead, Mayorkas paroled aliens en masse torelease them from mandatory detention.

The impeachable criminal offenses the House brought against Mayorkas are inarguable; Mayorkas has committed high crimes, not, as the pro-immigration lobby insists, carried out a border policy that Republicans disagree with. If stripped of partisanship and instead adhering to their constitutional duties, the senators would support the impeachment articles. But Capitol Hill insiders predict that, to avoid the ugly spectacle of a trial, Schumer will table the resolution which would be the first time in the nation’s 248-year history that such brazen disregard for a constitutional process has been attempted. 

But Schumer’s a figurative four-star general in Biden’s war to destroy America through the open border invasion. Schumer admitted his agenda when, in 2020, he said if the Democrats win the Senate “We will change America.” So far, Schumer has made good on his promise and, by blocking Mayorkas’ impeachment, is poised to deliver another blow to sovereign America.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@isfpp.org

Mayorkas Impeachment About Constitutional Crimes