The former Fox News host Megyn Kelly spoke out against President Joe Biden on Monday night, saying that recent polling numbers that show him training Donald Trump by 35 points are “devastating” for him.
Kelly Sounds Off On Trump And Biden
“If nothing changes, Trump will win the election,” Kelly said as she talked to The Fifth Column co-host Kmele Foster and International Women’s Forum Senior Policy Analyst Inez Stepman.
Kelly went on to call out both Biden and Donald Trump for not passing immigration reform, slamming what she feels is the false notion of the migrants being portrayed as “asylum seekers,” saying most of their claims are “bulls***.’
“It’s all bulls*** because most of the asylum seekers are not seeking asylum. It’s a lie!” Kelly said. “They could have sought asylum in Mexico. They went right through Mexico because they want to be here.”
“They don’t want to actually assimilate, a lot of them, but they want their government check,” she continued. “They want a driver’s license. They want to do all the things that American citizens do without doing any of the things that people who immigrated here legally and jumped through all the hoops had to do.”
.@glennbeck and @megynkelly discuss Biden’s border crisis and highlight our Colony Ridge Documentary: “We are becoming a third world nation. You cannot import 10 million third world refugees and expect those people to somehow be transformed into great citizens.” pic.twitter.com/EWVeccV1MY
Kelly went on to say that despite that, “there could be more funding for asylum claims to be processed” and Biden and Trump “didn’t do it” even though they each had both houses of Congress for the first two years of their presidencies.
“Those people should be processed, and we should figure out who genuinely needs our help and shares our value,” Kelly added. “But we don’t do any of that. And now they want to give Mayorkas a magic wand to say ‘I deem ye asylum seekers. Welcome to America!’ That’s not how it works.”
Not stopping there, Kelly proceeded to rip into Trump’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination Nikki Haley for her appearance on “Saturday Night Live!” over the weekend.
“I’ve got serious questions about whether this is a good idea,” Kelly exclaimed. “What’s next? ‘The Daily Show?’ How about Scarborough? Tiptoe through those tulips. Rachel Maddow? Joy Reid? Why doesn’t she go on her show? I don’t get it.”
“I like the Vivek Ramaswamy philosophy of like going everywhere and trying to get as many votes as you can get. I’m just not sure SNL is one of the venues where there’s any potential votes available,” she continued.
Check out Kelly’s full comments on this in the video below.
Back in September, Kelly questioned if Barack and Michelle Obama are the people really running Biden’s government.
“There are a lot of people who think the Obamas are already running the government and that there is some sort of shadow puppet situation going on that they’re controlling,” she declared, according to The Daily Beast. “There’s been questions from the beginning—is it Joe Biden really making the calls?”
“I think Michelle Obama is seen as a savior figure by the Democrats who think she’s the most beautiful person ever,” she added. “They think she’s the strongest leader. They think she’s their big hope.”
What do you think about Kelly’s comments? Let us know in the comments section.
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.”
An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad
A Democratic lawmaker slammed his Republican colleagues over their fealty to Donald Trump on Tuesday night during a marathon 15-hour session on impeachment charges against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over border security issues.
Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) said the House Homeland Security Committee has held 17 hearings on the border, but zero full committee hearings on other issues within its jurisdiction such as emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection and more.
“We have not lived up to our oversight obligation here on this committee because you all are obsessed with the border,” he said. “Because you bend the knee to the ‘Orange Jesus’ as you refer to him across the aisle.”
Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) wrote in her 2023 book that Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) used the phrase to describe Trump.
Green is now chair of the committee Menendez was railing against.
Menendez called the impeachment hearings a “sham” and said the committee has “failed” its jurisdiction.
“I’ve tried to listen here. I try to be a team player, I really do. I try not to engage in the partisanship,” he said. “But I’ve had it.”
The committee debated for 15 hours, ending early Wednesday only after Republicans blocked Democratic lawmakers from attempting any additional amendments, CNN noted.
The committee voted along party lines, 18-15, to advance the articles of impeachment to the House floor. Politico said a vote could come as early as next week.
John Dickerson reports on President Biden’s plans to respond to a deadly attack on troops in Jordan, House Republican efforts to impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and why some top companies are pushing new return-to-office mandates.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Washington — The House Homeland Security Committee is on track to advance articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday, which would pave the way for a full House vote in the coming days.
House Republicans on Sunday released two articles of impeachment against President Biden’s top immigration official, accusing him of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” over the administration’s handling of the migrant crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.
GOP Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, the committee’s chairman, said the panel had “exhausted all other options” to hold Mayorkas accountable. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the committee, characterized the impeachment effort as a “sham” and said the articles lack “even a shred of evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.”
The impeachment push comes as the GOP has made border security a central theme of the 2024 campaign and as House Republicans have come out against a border security-immigration deal that Mayorkas helped negotiate with a bipartisan group of senators. House Republican opposition has threatened its chances of passage in the lower chamber.
The first impeachment article accuses Mayorkas of repeatedly violating the law by allowing the release of migrants who are awaiting court proceedings. The second article alleges Mayorkas lied to lawmakers about whether the southern border was secure and obstructed congressional oversight of the department.
House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said last week the House would vote on the impeachment articles “as soon as possible.”
The charges against Mayorkas face an all but certain failure in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove him. But his impeachment would be historic given that he’d be the first cabinet official to be impeached in almost 150 years.
The impeachment fight
On the eve of the committee’s vote to advance the articles, Democrats released a report defending Mayorkas’ actions and accusing Republicans of abusing their impeachment power.
“Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy under the United States Constitution. It is not a tool for policy or political differences, and constitutional scholars and even some Republicans agree,” Democrats said in the 29-page report, which slammed the proceedings as a political exercise meant to “satiate the extreme MAGA base.”
The committee sped through impeachment proceedings this month, holding just two hearings in which lawmakers heard testimony from three state attorneys general, as well as from people whose family members have died as a result of fentanyl overdoses or violent crime.
Democrats said Republicans failed to give Mayorkas a chance to testify, denying him of “a meaningful opportunity to respond to the baseless charges against him.”
Republicans and the Homeland Security Department clashed over whether Mayorkas would appear in person during the impeachment proceedings. Mayorkas declined to attend the hearing on Jan. 18, citing a conflicting meeting with Mexican officials about border enforcement, but agreed to testify at a later date. Green accused Mayorkas of playing a game of “cat and mouse,” and the border chief was instead instructed to submit written testimony before the end of the month.
But the committee’s 18 Republican members then decided they did not need to wait to hear from Mayorkas, announcing after the final hearing that they all supported impeaching him.
In a letter to lawmakers ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Mayorkas called on Congress to step up and provide a legislative solution to the border crisis. He said the policies negotiated by senators would “make a substantial difference at our border.”
He also hit back at Republican attacks, calling their accusations “politically motivated.”
“I assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader public service mission to which I have devoted most of my career and to which I remain devoted,” Mayorkas said.
In response to the release of the impeachment articles, the department on Sunday said the effort was a “distraction from other vital national security priorities and the work Congress should be doing to actually fix our broken immigration laws.”
“They don’t want to fix the problem; they want to campaign on it,” the department said in a memo.
Nicole Sganga contributed reporting.
How to watch the Mayorkas impeachment articles markup
What: House Homeland Security Committee votes to advance articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
Date: Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2024
Time: 10 a.m. ET
Online stream: Live on CBS News in the player above and on your mobile or streaming device.
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at cbsnews.com and is based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.
Washington — House Republicans are moving forward with their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his handling of the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border, holding their first hearing on the matter Wednesday morning.
“Today is a solemn occasion as this committee begins official impeachment proceedings in the matter of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his handling of America’s borders since taking office in February 2021,” GOP Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, the committee’s chairman said. “Our evidence makes it clear: Secretary Mayorkas is the architect of the devastation that we have witnessed for nearly three years.”
House Republicans argue that Mayorkas has failed to perform his duties and neglected to act in accordance with laws passed by Congress. The impeachment push also comes as the GOP has made border security a central theme ahead of the 2024 elections, seeking to capitalize on the issue after an unprecedented number of migrants crossed the southern border at the end of last year.
Attorneys general from Montana, Oklahoma and Missouri testified at Wednesday’s hearing to highlight the impact of migration on their states under Mayorkas’ leadership. The secretary did not attend. The Department of Homeland Security called the impeachment effort “baseless and pointless” and called on Congress to reform the nation’s immigration laws.
The Mayorkas impeachment hearing
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speaks at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 13, 2022.
OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images
Green argued in his opening statement that impeachment was designed not only to remove officials “engaged in criminal behavior,” but also those “guilty of such gross incompetence that their conduct had endangered their fellow Americans, betrayed the public trust or represented a neglect of duty.” He suggested that Mayorkas’ handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border had met the standard.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers decried the impeachment effort, calling it a political exercise with no reasonable basis.
“It is now campaign season and Republicans recently rolled out their impeachment proceedings against the secretary like a pre-planned, predetermined political stunt it is,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the committee. “This is not a legitimate impeachment.”
Thompson said House Republicans are pushing the impeachment inquiry “to distract from their own failures,” while highlighting that some are opposing funding for the border in the White House’s supplemental funding request despite their push to enhance border security.
“Democrats want to strengthen border security. We want to keep fentanyl off the street. We want to keep communities safe,” Thompson said. “This circus side-show impeachment does none of that.”
The attorneys general railed against Mayorkas’ leadership on Wednesday, testifying that the situation has grown dire in their states under the secretary’s tenure, attributing local drug and trafficking incidents to the flow of migrants at the southern border.
“The Trump administration overcame fierce opposition at every turn and was able to gain control of our southern border as no previous administration could. But all of that progress has been destroyed,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said. “Secretary Mayorkas is the architect of that destruction.”
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accused Mayorkas of facilitating an “orchestrated lack of enforcement” of the country’s immigration laws, which he said has led to the impeachment proceedings.
“Rather than find ways to secure our border, Secretary Mayorkas has been busy enacting policies to make it easier to enter our country illegally,” Bailey said, adding that states are “forced to bear the enormous cost of Secretary Mayorkas’ failure.”
Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri’s law school, appeared before the committee at the invitation of Democratic members. He stressed that impeachment “is not supposed to be a routine tool to resolve ordinary public policy debates.”
Bowman explained that the Constitution defines impeachable conduct as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and argued that policy disputes between Congress and a Cabinet secretary do not rise to that level.
“The most commonly encountered categories of impeachable conduct are official corruption, abuse of power, betrayal of the nation’s foreign policy interests and subversion of the Constitution,” Bowman said. “There is no serious allegation of which I’m aware that the secretary has done any of those things.”
Republicans’ impeachment push
The hearing comes after House leaders last year stalled an effort by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to force a vote on impeaching Mayorkas. The Georgia Republican pulled her impeachment resolution after she said she received assurances from House leaders that her earlier effort would move forward at the committee level.
Greene’s resolution accused Mayorkas of violating federal law and the Constitution by failing to “maintain operational control of the border” and prevent an “invasion.”
Some Republicans voiced doubt about impeachment at the time, saying Mayorkas’ actions did not amount to impeachable offenses. Others said they wanted to wait for the committee’s investigation to be completed before holding an impeachment vote.
Green, the committee chairman, said last week that the panel recently concluded a nearly yearlong investigation into the situation at the border.
“Our investigation made clear that this crisis finds its foundation in Secretary Mayorkas’ decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” he said in a statement announcing the hearing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana led a delegation of more than 60 Republicans to the border last week. He called the trip an “eye opener,” saying they got a “first-hand look at the damage and chaos the border catastrophe is causing in all of our communities.”
Even if the GOP-controlled House impeaches Mayorkas, it is highly unlikely that he would be convicted in a trial in the Senate, which has a Democratic majority and would require a vote of two-thirds of senators to remove him from office. Still, his impeachment would be historic, given that he would be the first Cabinet official to be impeached in almost 150 years.
During a visit to the border on Monday, Mayorkas called on Congress to take action to fix the nation’s immigration system and said accusations that he has not enforced the nation’s laws “could not be further from the truth.”
“There is nothing I take more seriously than our responsibility to uphold the law,” Mayorkas said, later adding that “the majority of all migrants encountered at the Southwest border throughout this administration have been removed, returned or expelled — a majority of them.”
Mayorkas has been part of talks between the White House and a small bipartisan group of senators who have been negotiating a potential deal on immigration policy and border security.
In a memo released ahead of the impeachment hearing, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to those talks and contrasted them with the impeachment effort in the House.
“After decades of Congressional inaction on our broken immigration laws, Secretary Mayorkas and a bipartisan group of Senators are working hard to try and find real solutions to address these challenges,” the DHS memo said. “Instead of working in a bipartisan way to fix our broken immigration laws, the House Majority is wasting time on baseless and pointless political attacks by trying to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.”
Nikole Killion and Nicole Sganga contributed reporting.
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at cbsnews.com and is based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Mr. Biden’s homeland security adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall traveled to Mexico on Wednesday to meet with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador as unauthorized crossings have strained federal and local resources in communities across the U.S.
Blinken “will discuss unprecedented irregular migration in the Western Hemisphere and identify ways Mexico and the United States will address border security challenges, including actions to enable the reopening of key ports of entry across our shared border,” the State Department said ahead of the visit.
The White House said last week that Mr. Biden spoke to López Obrador on Thursday about “ongoing efforts to manage migratory flows in the Western Hemisphere.” The two leaders “agreed that additional enforcement actions are urgently needed so that key ports of entry can be reopened across our shared border,” the White House said.
The visit comes after Border Patrol processed nearly 50,000 migrants who entered the U.S. illegally in just five days last week. In November, Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 191,000 migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border unlawfully. This month, as many as 10,000 migrants were apprehended daily at the southern border.
Mexico’s president said last week he’s willing to help address the issue, but he wants the U.S. to provide more aid to the region and ease sanctions Cuba and Venezuela.
“We have always talked about addressing the causes [of migration]. The ideal thing is to help poor countries,” López Obrador said, according to the Associated Press.
In the U.S., Congress has debated border policy changes for weeks as part of a larger package including assistance to Ukraine and Israel. To convince Republicans — who want harsher border security measures — to support more foreign aid, Democrats are considering drastic limits on asylum and increased deportations.
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at cbsnews.com and is based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
Screenshot: Public Social Media Image – Bill Melugin on X/@BillMelugin_
An illegal immigrant who crossed the southern border into Texas was reportedly released by ICE and given a check-in appointment date of January 2031.
The notice prompted the woman’s immigration attorney, who claims she’s actually “a legitimate asylum seeker,” to call it one of the most shocking things he’s seen in his three decades practicing in the field.
Fox News reporter Bill Melugin posted an image of the directive advising of a confirmed appointment date with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The hearing will be held in the New York field office, as selected by the asylum seeker.
Her attorney, Matthew Kolken, states that a court date eight years into the future casts doubt on whether or not his client would ever get to argue in favor of an asylum claim.
“It made me realize the Biden administration is basically providing backdoor amnesty for anyone who wants to show up at the border,” he said.
NEW: A Colombian woman who crossed illegally into El Paso, TX & was released into the U.S. was given an ICE check in date in NYC in 2031. Her immigration attorney, @mkolken, tells me it’s one of the most shocking things he’s seen in his nearly 30 years of immigration law. (1/2). pic.twitter.com/A71el4NFfa
A “legitimate asylum seeker” not getting a hearing until 2031 is a sure sign that the court system is being overwhelmed and clogged up with illegitimate asylum seekers.
Melugin informed followers on X that Kolken, a two-time “Lawyer of the Year” in the practice of immigration, believes that his client has an “airtight case.”
However, he worries that she’ll never get to prove it “because the system is so backlogged with illegitimate asylum claims.”
2/2) Kolken tells me his client is a legitimate asylum seeker with what he feels is an air tight case, but because the system is so backlogged with illegitimate asylum claims, he’s not sure they’ll ever get a chance to argue it in court with her next check in 8 years into the…
This past spring, the independent journalist Tayler Hansen released video and images on social media purportedly showing illegal immigrants opening up packets from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which included government-issued smartphones and directives to appear at a court date set many years in the future.
The New York Post reported around that time that illegal immigrants had received “paperwork with designated court dates set as late as 2032 and 2035 in Chicago and Florida.”
DHS Secretary Who Helped Engineer The Border Crisis Says Securing The Nation Is ‘Violence’
All of this comes as video after video is posted to social media showing the overwhelming scale of the border invasion of America.
Yet, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas contends that a desire to secure the border is actual “violence.”
Border security, he reasons, is “violence to our fundamental values.”
Alejandro Mayorkas says building a border wall, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, limiting asylum, and narrowing Biden’s power to parole illegal immigrants is “violence to our fundamental values” pic.twitter.com/7gexP7D70n
Mayorkas was referring to constructing barriers, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, limiting asylum, and narrowing a president’s ability to unilaterally parole illegal immigrants into the country — all commonsense solutions.
Now, apparently, ICE is watching these people illegally enter the country and handing them a piece of paper, a pat on the back, and the hope that somewhere between 8-12 years from now they’ll check themselves back in.
That, Mr. Mayorkas, is “violence to our fundamental values.”
It’s so violent that it borders on treason to allow it to happen to the American people.
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.”
Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, and many more.
FREE NEWS ALERTS
Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.
By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.
Young Republican voters overwhelmingly want Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024, and they only disagree on whether he should choose Tucker Carlson or Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate, according to a straw poll of participants who attended Turning Point Action’s annual AmericaFest.
Obtained exclusively by RealClearPolitics, the results provide a snapshot of the youth vote just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The online poll was conducted by Turning Point Action Dec. 17-18 and surveyed 1,113 attendees at the TPUSA conference in Phoenix, Ariz.
The results show Trump as the clear favorite with 82.6% of respondents choosing the former president as their first choice. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second with 7.6%, while Vivek Ramaswamy followed closely in third with 5.8%. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who has garnered national media attention and a recent bump in momentum, finished fifth.
Barely more than 1%, or 12 voters, at the Trump-friendly event said they preferred Haley compared to the 2.5% who remained “undecided.”
The topline results are not surprising given that the founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, remains an ardent ally of the former president and previously served as the CEO of Students for Trump. But the survey sheds light on a question currently dominating Trump world.
When asked whom Trump should choose as his vice president if he wins the nomination, 35%, a plurality, settled on former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Another 25.7%, meanwhile, preferred Ramaswamy. Both men made headlines with their remarks at the conference.
Ramaswamy responded from the main stage to criticism from CNN host Van Jones, who called him a demagogue earlier this month. “Just shut the f–k up,” the businessman-turned-politician said to applause. For his part, Carlson downplayed the idea of entering politics himself.
“It’s like the weather,” the pundit replied when asked about joining the ticket with Trump. “I can’t control it,” Carlson said after floating Ramaswamy instead for VP. “I don’t think I’d be that great at that.”
On the eve of the primary, the results reflect the policy appetites of the right-leaning youth. Attendees ranked border security and “deporting Biden-era illegal immigrants” as their top priority ahead of “election integrity” and “defunding the deep state,” which ranked second and third. Meanwhile, ending diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from the government, which has been a calling card of the DeSantis campaign, ranked as their lowest priority.
Mirroring a larger shift on the right, the survey also shows a youth vote increasingly skeptical of foreign aid to Ukraine but largely supportive of Israel’s war with Hamas. A clear majority, 55.4%, backed giving lethal aid to Tel Aviv, less than 1% supported sending the same to Kyiv, and 39.4% responded that the United States shouldn’t provide such supplies to either Israel or Ukraine.
Congress generally earns poor approval ratings, but the young Republicans seemed to like newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson, with 57% either somewhat or strongly approving of his job performance. They were somewhat split, meanwhile, on whether the House should have expelled former New York Rep. George Santos, who made numerous false representations about himself during the previous election.
While 32% approved of the Santos expulsion, 47% disapproved of the history-making move which had only occurred five times previously.
The same week that the House approved an impeachment inquiry of President Biden, 49.6% said that they supported removing him from office. Another 24.3% reported that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should be impeached, while 15.2% wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland gone.
As both parties court the youth vote, the survey found that young Republicans in the Turning Point orbit are unsatisfied with RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. An overwhelming 87% said that she should step down, and 56% reported that her departure would make them “more likely” to donate to the party. Charlie Kirk supported Harmeet Dhillon in her unsuccessful challenge of McDaniel earlier this year.
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.”
FREE NEWS ALERTS
Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.
By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.
How many more times are we going to watch activist judges, activist prosecutors, and activist White House officials do everything in their power to keep Donald Trump out of the White, House only to watch Republicans simply threaten to take action?
Democrats do. Republicans talk. America loses.
America just watched one of the most blatantly naked attempts in the history of this country at illegally preventing somebody from being elected President by the people.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 4-3 that the former President should be removed from state ballots because his actions on January 6th, 2021 “constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection” by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol.
Aside from the fact that Trump was not at the Capitol when the protests took place, meaning justices on the Colorado Supreme Court have no idea what the word “direct” means, the leading Republican candidate has never been charged with “insurrection” and was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial regarding the matter.
The ruling was such a legal abortion that people who don’t even like Trump were outraged and suggested that the Supreme Court must overturn the decision.
BREAKING: Ty Cobb, former Asst US Attorney, tells CNN the US Supreme Court will act quickly and overturn Colorado Supreme Court ruling 9-0
Republicans Respond To Trump Being Taken Off Colorado Ballot
Readers of The Political Insider know in-depth the extent to which Democrats will go to keep Trump out of the White House. If it isn’t rogue judges, it’s endless arrests on specious criminal charges. It’s the weaponization of the whole of federal government against conservatives. It’s the media and their perpetual lies or efforts to censor the truth.
And they’re not doing it because they hate Trump so much as they hate everything about those who support him. You are, after all, the deplorable that they turn their nose up from every time you walk into a room.
Does any of this sound funny to you? When you heard the news last night that Colorado would remove Trump from the ballot, did you feel like making jokes and idle threats? Or did you want to pick up your sword and actually fight back?
Think about that feeling. Harness it. Then realize that Republican officials think it’s all a big joke.
“Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president,” Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said in a Fox News interview.
Texas Lt. Gov @DanPatrick flips script on Democrats after Trump gets barred from ballot in Colorado:
“Maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been President.”
Really? Y’all are gonna just take him off the ballot when GOP lawmakers couldn’t even impeach him three years into the process that allowed those 8 million illegal aliens to invade our country?
Hell, you couldn’t even get enough Republicans to muster up the courage to impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for violating the Constitution by failing to secure the border.
If you thought Patrick’s joke was good, here are a couple more knee-slappers you simply must see to believe.
“Could we just say that Biden can’t be on the ballot because he let in 8 million illegals into the country, and violated the Constitution?” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said at a campaign rally.
We could. But we know you won’t. Biden has violated the Constitution exponentially more than Trump ever violated the 14th Amendment, yet here we are.
Democrats do. Republicans talk. America loses.
DeSantis reacts to Colorado Supreme Court power grab: “There was no trial on any of this. Could we just say that Biden can’t be on the ballot because he let in 8 million illegals into the country and violated the Constitution?” pic.twitter.com/4bQpcZjvPu
Conservative commentator Rogan O’Handley half-heartedly suggested that Texas and Florida should both follow through on these “threats.”
“If Colorado is taking Trump off the ballot, Florida and Texas should take Biden off the ballot. Allowing 8M+ illegal aliens into America is the greatest form of insurrection,” he posted to X. “See how slippery this slope gets?”
If Colorado is taking Trump off the ballot, Florida and Texas should take Biden off the ballot
Allowing 8M+ illegal aliens into America is the greatest form of insurrection
No, actually, we don’t. Because the slope never truly gets slippery.
“If you impeach Trump over frivolous allegations, it’ll create a slippery slope of impeachments.” Biden hasn’t been impeached.
“If you arrest and charge your political opponents and their supporters, it’ll create a slippery slope whereby Democrats are arrested and charged for the same actions.” They’re never charged with insurrection.
“If you remove Trump from the ballot, it’ll make it easier to remove Biden from that ballot.”
Narrator: They’re not going to do this now, they’re not going to do it in the future.
They rile you up with speeches and threats to finally – FINALLY – take action. But they never do.
Democrats do. Republicans talk. America loses.
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.”
Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, and many more.
FREE NEWS ALERTS
Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.
By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.
Washington — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday rebuffed growing criticism over his decision to approve the construction of more than a dozen miles of border walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, saying the Biden administration was bound by law to follow through with the project.
Mayorkas rejected the notion that the administration had changed its policy as it relates to a border wall, which President Biden strongly denounced during the 2020 presidential campaign.
“From day one, this Administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer,” Mayorkas said in a statement Thursday. “That remains our position and our position has never wavered.”
The controversy began Wednesday, when the Department of Homeland Security posted a notice in which Mayorkas had waived over two dozen federal laws, including ones to protect wildlife and the environment, to expedite the construction of border barriers and other infrastructure in a section of Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. In the notice, Mayorkas said there was an “acute and immediate need” to construct the barriers to prevent unlawful border entries, which soared to a yearly high in September.
The announcement quickly sparked a heated debate, as well as condemnation from environmental activists, migrant advocates, Democratic lawmakers and even Mexico’s president, who said the move echoed former President Trump’s controversial efforts to build hundreds of miles of wall to deter migrant crossings.
Conservatives, meanwhile, said the move gave credence to Mr. Trump’s signature border policy, and highlighted the announcement as an abrupt and hypocritical 180-degrees change of course by Mr. Biden.
During the 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden vowed not to build “another foot” of the border wall. On his first day in office in 2021, he issued an executive order halting border barrier construction. “Like every nation, the United States has a right and a duty to secure its borders and protect its people against threats. But building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution,” Mr. Biden wrote in that order.
On Thursday, Mayorkas said the notice on Wednesday had been “taken out of context.” It did not, he said, “signify any change in policy whatsoever.”
Mayorkas said the administration was legally obligated to use money Congress allocated in 2019 for border barrier construction in south Texas for its intended purpose. “We have repeatedly asked Congress to rescind this money but it has not done so, and we are compelled to follow the law,” he said.
Asked about the controversy earlier on Thursday in the Oval Office, Mr. Biden delivered a similar remark.
“The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t, they wouldn’t. And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that,” he said.
Mr. Biden said he did not think border walls were effective.
Before this week’s announcement, the Biden administration had mainly used border barrier money to fill gaps in the wall.
The president’s remarks on Thursday did not diminish the criticism over the decision to build the barriers in South Texas, including from his Democratic allies.
California Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called Mayorkas’ notice “disappointing”
“While this border wall funding was signed into law by President Trump under Republican leadership, this decision is not in line with the current administration’s commitments to end border wall construction,” she said.
President Joe Biden said Thursday that he doesn’t believe border walls work, even as his administration said it will waive 26 laws to build additional border barriers in the Rio Grande Valley amid heightened political pressure over migration.
According to a notice posted to the Federal Register Wednesday, construction of the wall will be paid for using already appropriated funds earmarked specifically for physical border barriers. The administration was under a deadline to use them or lose them. But the move comes at a time when a new surge of migrants is straining federal and local resources and placing heavy political pressure on the Biden administration to address a sprawling crisis, and the notice cited “high illegal entry.”
Biden – who, as a candidate, vowed that there will “not be another foot” of border wall constructed on his watch – defended the decision to reporters Thursday, saying that he tried to get the money appropriated for other purposes but was unsuccessful.
“I’ll answer one question on the border wall: The border wall – the money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t, they wouldn’t. And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that,” Biden told reporters in the Oval Office.
Asked whether he believes the border wall works, Biden answered, “No.”
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated forcefully that there had been no change to the administration’s policy at a news conference in Mexico City on Thursday.
“I want to address today’s reporting relating to a border wall and be absolutely clear: There is no new administration policy with respect to the border wall,” Mayorkas said. “Allow me to repeat that: There is no new administration policy with respect to the border wall.”
“We have repeatedly asked Congress to rescind this money, but it has not done so, and we are compelled to follow the law,” he said.
Border Patrol reported nearly 300,000 encounters in the Rio Grande Valley sector between last October and August, according to federal data. Last month, Border Patrol apprehended more than 200,000 migrants crossing the US-Mexico border, the highest total this year.
Biden has been plagued by issues on the border since his first months in office, when the US faced a surge of unaccompanied migrant children that caught officials flatfooted. Over the last two years, his administration has continued to face fierce pushback from Republicans – and at times, Democrats – over his immigration policies.
But a new surge of migrants has placed additional pressure on federal resources and tested Biden’s latest border policies only months after going into place, prompting fresh criticism from Republicans and concern within the administration over a politically delicate issue.
Migration along the southern border has been a relentlessfocus of the Republican presidential primary field and conservative media, and leading Democrats, including the mayors of New York and Chicago, have begun publicly demanding stronger efforts by the federal government to provide resources to accommodate arrivals.
The Department of Homeland Security had concluded “it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads” in Starr County, Texas, along the US border with Mexico, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in the filing posted in the US Federal Registry.
“There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas,” Mayorkas said in the notice.
Construction of the wall will be paid for through a 2019 appropriations bill that funneled money specifically to a “border barrier” in the Rio Grande Valley, and according to Mayorkas, “DHS is required to use those funds for their appropriated purpose.” The funds needed to be spent by the end of fiscal year 2023, prompting the administration to choose to move forward this year with construction in south Texas, according to a source familiar.
US Customs and Border Protection had previously announced plans to design and construct up to 20 miles of new border barrier systems in Starr County, including light poles and lighting, gates, cameras and access roads, among other systems. CBP sought public input between August and September, according to the agency.
A CBP spokesperson said the agency “remains committed to protecting the nation’s cultural and natural resources” while implementing “sound environmental practices” to build the border barriers.
Migrant crossings at the US-Mexico border are expected to remain high in the near term, a senior US Customs and Border Protection official recently told CNN, though additional commitments from Mexico are expected to help eventually drive down numbers.
This week, Mayorkas, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Attorney General Merrick Garland and White House Homeland Security adviser Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall will meet with their Mexican counterparts in Mexico City for annual security talks.
Migration is expected to be a topic of discussion. Senior administration officials maintain that the US has been in regular touch with Mexico over the situation at the US southern border, including commitments to shore up enforcement.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said constructing a new border wall is a “regression” that won’t resolve the immigration problem. During his daily press conference, he criticized “right-wing Republicans” for pressing the immigration and drug trafficking problem for political purposes.
“So, they are acting very irresponsibly, and they are putting very hard pressure on the president, who will always count on our support,” Lopez Obrador said. “But that authorization for the construction of the wall is a setback. Because that doesn’t solve the problem, that doesn’t solve the problem. The causes must be addressed.”
This story has been updated with additional information.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The testimony came amid a legal battle over President Biden’s asylum plan and the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Texas for putting up floating barriers to stop migrants. CBS News immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez joined to unpack the legal challenges facing the Biden administration.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, revived the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that prioritize which noncitizens to deport, dismissing a challenge from two Republican state attorneys general who argued the policies conflicted with immigration law.
The court said the states, Texas and Louisiana,did not have the “standing,” or the legal right, to sue in the first place in a decision that will further clarify when a state can challenge a federal policy in court going forward.
The ruling is a major victory for President Joe Biden and the White House, who have consistently argued the need to prioritize who they detain and deport given limited resources. By ruling against the states, the court tightened the rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies with which they disagree. The Biden administration policy was put on pause by a federal judge nearly two years ago and the Supreme Court declined to lift that hold last year.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote Friday’s majority opinion in the case.
“In sum, the states have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”
Kavanaugh said that the executive branch has traditional discretion over whether to take enforcement actions under federal law. He said that if the court were to allow the states to bring the lawsuit at hand, it would “entail expansive judicial direction” of the executive’s arrest policy and would open the door to more lawsuits from states that think the executive is not doing enough to enforce the law in other areas such as drug and gun regulation and obstruction of justice laws.
“We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path,” Kavanaugh said.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the administration welcomes the court’s ruling and that his department looks forward to using the immigration guidelines.
The guidelines “enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress,” Mayorkas said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring an opinion that concluded that the states also lacked standing, but for different reasons than the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
At the heart of the dispute was a September 2021 memo from Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the apprehension and removal of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations.
In his memo, Mayorkas stated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable non-citizens in the country and that the United States does not have the ability to apprehend and seek to remove all of them. As such, the Department of Homeland Security sought to prioritize those who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.
Kavanaugh’s opinion stressed that the standing doctrine “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper – and properly limited – role in our constitutional system.” He said that by ensuring a party has standing to sue, “federal courts prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”
The majority did not address the underlying question of whether the administration had the authority to implement the policy.
“We take no position on whether the executive branch here is complying with its legal obligations under §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2),” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the relevant immigration statutes. “We hold only that the federal courts are not the proper forum to resolve this dispute.”
Kavanaugh pointed out that five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.
In his sole dissent, Alito wrote that this “sweeping executive power endorsed by today’s decision may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power, but if presidents can expand their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength with Congress, presumably Congress can cut executive power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable weapons at its disposal.”
“That is not what the Constitution envisions,” he wrote.
Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who filed an amicus brief in the immigration case, noted that Friday’s ruling was the second decision within the last week in which the court “held that red states lacked standing to challenge a federal policy – perhaps a signal of dissatisfaction with how liberally lower courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have permitted these challenges to go forward.”
“And it’s the second in the last two years in which it has reversed a nationwide injunction against a Biden immigration policy in a suit brought by Texas,” Vladeck said. “When states are the right plaintiffs to challenge federal policies is also one of the central issues before the court in the challenges to Biden’s student loan program – in which the court is expected to rule next week.”
Kavanaugh’s opinion emphasized that, in “holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the executive branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”
In court, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed that Congress has never provided the funds to detain everyone, prompting different administrations to consider how to prioritize limited funds. She noted that the executive branch retains the authority to focus its “limited resources” on non-citizens who are higher priorities for removal and warned that if the states were to prevail, it would “scramble” immigration enforcement on the ground, leading to a totally unmanageable landscape. She said the states’ view in the case was a “senseless” way to run an immigration system.
“I think that that is bad for the executive branch. I think it’s bad for the American public and I think it’s bad for Article Three courts,” she said.
The guidelines call for an assessment of the “totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of the development of a bright-line rule. The government lists aggravating factors weighing in favor of an enforcement action, including the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, but it also lists mitigating factors that include the age of the immigrant.
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, representing Texas and Louisiana, argued that the administration lacked the authority to issue the memo because it conflicts with existing federal law. He accused the government of treating immigration law in the area as “discretionary” and not “mandatory” and argued that the executive branch lacks the authority to “disregard” Congress’ instruction.
“The states prove their standing at trial based on harms well recognized,” Stone said, emphasizing the costs incurred when the government “violates federal law.”
A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the executive branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.”
A federal appeals court declined to issue a stay of the decision, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief last July. A 5-4 court ruled against the administration, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect while the legal challenge played out.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her three liberal colleagues in dissent without providing any explanation for her vote.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Sunday that it is “too early” to know whether the surge in migrants at the US southern border has peaked since the expiration of Title 42 last week.
“The numbers we have experienced over the past few days are markedly down over what they were prior to the end of Title 42,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
Title 42, the Trump-era pandemic public health policy that allowed authorities to swiftly turn back migrants at the US-Mexico border, expired on May 11.
On Sunday, Mayorkas said that US border authorities have “experienced a 50% drop in the number of encounters,” compared with earlier in the week when encounter along the US southern border were at around 10,000 migrants a day.
He told CNN that authorities reported about 6,300 border encounters Friday and 4,200 on Saturday.
Mayorkas credited the low numbers in the past two days to the Biden administration’s clear message to migrants that circumventing the lawful pathways for asylum come with grave consequences.
“We have communicated very clearly, a vitally important message to the individuals who are thinking of arriving at our southern border,” he said. “There is a lawful, safe and orderly way to arrive in the United States that is through the pathways that President Biden has expanded in an unprecedented way. And then there’s a consequence if one does not use those lawful pathways. And that consequence is removal from the United States, a deportation and encountering a five-year ban on reentry and possible criminal prosecution.”
Mayorkas pushed back on criticism from both sides of the aisle that the Biden administration has been ill prepared for the end of Title 42.
“I would respectfully disagree,” he said, defending the administration’s evolving asylum system, which faces questions from liberals over its fairness to would-be migrants.
CNN previously reported that with the lifting of Title 42, the administration would largely bar migrants who traveled through other countries on their way to the US-Mexico border from applying for asylum in the United States, marking a departure from decadeslong protocol.
The rule, proposed earlier this year, presumes that migrants are ineligible for asylum in the US if they didn’t first seek refuge in a country they transited through, like Mexico, on the way to the border. Migrants who secure an appointment through the CBP One app would be exempt, according to officials.
Mayorkas framed the tightening of asylum rules as a way to “cut out” smugglers who profit off human tragedy, saying that it’s “not only a security imperative, but a humanitarian responsibility.”
“We have an obligation to deliver consequences at our border, to not only manage our border, but to cut the smugglers out,” he said.
Mayorkas also said he has not spoken to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about what compromise Republicans and the administration could reach on immigration, after the GOP-controlled House passed a stringent border security bill last week.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says “what we need is our” immigration system fixed, not this band-aid solution” from Congress – CBS News
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas tells “Face the Nation” that the Biden administration is ready for the end of Title 42 on May 11. He dismissed the bipartisan solution proposed by Congress, saying “what we need is our system fixed, not this band-aid solution.”
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
At a time of intense controversy over immigration, Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas tells Sharyn Alfonsi why he won’t call the situation at the southern border a crisis.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
When he was less than a year old, Alejandro Mayorkas and his family came to the United States as refugees, fleeing Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba. Today, he is the first immigrant to head the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. His portfolio includes everything from counterterrorism and cyber-security, to overseeing the Coast Guard and Secret Service. But it’s what he’s done – or not done – about the large number of migrants crossing the U.S. border with Mexico that’s prompted protests by migrant advocates…and fiery attacks by Republicans who want to impeach him. Tonight, you will hear from Secretary Mayorkas about the efforts to push him out of office and why he refuses to call the situation on the southern border a “crisis”.
Early morning is often the busiest time for illegal crossings along the U.S.- Mexico border.
The day we went out with the U.S. Border Patrol near El Paso, Texas was no exception.
Before meeting the Cabinet secretary in charge of securing the borders, we got a view from the field.
The Border Patrol reported over 2 million apprehensions in the past year – a record high. Some migrants surrendered themselves to border agents, with the intention of seeking asylum.
Customs and Border Patrol agents apprehend migrants at the border.
60 Minutes
But the DHS estimates another 600,000 people evaded agents and entered the U.S. illegally, the highest number in over a decade.
Which is why Secretary Mayorkas’ testimony before Congress last fall raised a few eyebrows
Sharyn Alfonsi: What the American people see is a border that looks to be chaotic, that looks to be porous.
Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, let, let’s, I mean, the number of people that are arriving at our border is at an extraordinary height. There’s no question about that. But that is not unique to the southern border of the United States. There is a tremendous amount of movement throughout the hemisphere and in fact throughout the world.
Sharyn Alfonsi: The chief of the border patrol, Raul Ortiz, testified before Congress that some areas of the border are in a crisis situation. Do you agree?
Alejandro Mayorkas: I think that we face a very serious challenge in certain parts of the border.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Do you view what’s happening right now on the border as a crisis?
Alejandro Mayorkas: I view it as a significant challenge.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Why won’t you say the word ‘crisis?’
Alejandro Mayorkas: You know what? Because I have tremendous faith in the people of the Department of Homeland Security. And a crisis speaks to me of a withdrawal from our mission. And, and we are only putting more force and more energy into it.
A lot of force and energy is now being directed at Secretary Mayorkas on Capitol Hill.
This past week, Republicans took aim at the secretary, blaming him, personally, for the drug deaths of Americans, the rape of migrant children and more.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
60 Minutes
Sharyn Alfonsi: Congress seems to be more interested in impeaching you than passing immigration reform. One member of Congress said he’d like to arrest you for negligent homicide for the deaths of young people from fentanyl, another compared you to Benedict Arnold.
Alejandro Mayorkas: I disregard that type of rhetoric. I’m focused on the mission.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Do you think they’re just trying to get you to resign?
Alejandro Mayorkas: I’m not going to resign. I love public service. I think it’s an incredible honor to be a part of it.
Sharyn Alfonsi: How often do you and President Biden discuss the situation at the border? There’s a perception that the president doesn’t wanna talk about the border.
Alejandro Mayorkas: That’s a false impression that I, I consider to be also political rhetoric. I was with the president when he visited the border. I’ve spoken multiple times with the president. I, of course, speak with the White House team on a regular basis and with my colleagues in the Cabinet.
The problems at the border didn’t start with the Biden administration and likely won’t end with it. Congress hasn’t passed major immigration reform in nearly three decades. Secretary Mayorkas is asking Congress for additional resources on the southern border.
Alejandro Mayorkas: This is the first year, since 2011, that we have added to the Border Patrol 300 more agents. The fiscal year 2024 budget calls for 350 more Border Patrol agents, more than $100 million in technological investments.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Is there anything that’s off the table, that you won’t do to secure the border?
Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, the president– as– I think you know very well, said we are not going to construct more wall that costs billions and billions of dollars, that is immovable and that is already beginning to corrode.
Secretary Mayorkas joined the Biden Administration with a resume seemingly well suited for the job. He’d been the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and deputy director of Homeland Security under President Obama. He was also a refugee whose Romanian mother and Cuban father fled Cuba when he was an infant.
Alejandro Mayorkas: I understand deeply the yearning of parents to give their children opportunities that America offers. We are a nation of laws. If people qualify under the law, then we embrace them. If they don’t, then we return them.
Sharyn Alfonsi: The first weeks in office, the Biden administration halted deportations for 100 days, stopped all border wall construction, and suspended the Remain in Mexico policy. Critics say it all added up to putting a come in, we’re open sign on the door.
Border wall
60 Minutes
Alejandro Mayorkas: I don’t think that the more than a million people last year that we removed or expelled would consider the border open.
Sharyn Alfonsi: But the messaging
Alejandro Mayorkas: But
Sharyn Alfonsi: Was the messaging wrong there that, you know, we’re open?
Alejandro Mayorkas: That wasn’t our messaging. But that was the
Sharyn Alfonsi: But that’s what
Alejandro Mayorkas: The messaging
Sharyn Alfonsi: The migrants were getting.
Alejandro Mayorkas: Because remember something, that we are not the only source of messages that the migrants receive. We have smuggling organizations that exploit the migrants. And those smuggling organizations engage in mis and disinformation.
In December, according to Border Patrol figures, an average of 1,800 migrants a day crossed the border into the El Paso area, overwhelming the city.
To manage the increasing flow of migrants from crisis-stricken Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba, President Biden expanded the use of a public health law known as Title 42, invoked during the pandemic, to expel migrants to Mexico.
At the same time, the administration unveiled new pathways for migrants to enter the U.S. legally.
All the people in this line at a border crossing in El Paso scheduled an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border protection by using a mobile app called CBP One.
Carla Delgado, from Venezuela, told us her family had crossed the Darien Gap, a dangerous stretch of jungle straddling Panama and Colombia, to get here.
After a series of background checks and screenings, they were granted permission to temporarily enter the United States.
By early afternoon, they enjoyed their first slice of pizza in America. They have friends in Chicago and told us they plan to build a new life there and apply for asylum in the U.S.
Delgado family enjoys pizza in the U.S.
60 Minutes
Sharyn Alfonsi: There’s a backlog in the immigration system. We know only years from now will a judge figure out whether they actually qualify for asylum in the U.S. How is that arrangement good for them? How is that arrangement good for the country?
Alejandro Mayorkas: I would ask them after they enjoyed their f– their first pizza. How do they feel as compared to what they fled? You mentioned that their asylum claim may not be adjudicated, may not be judged for years. Our asylum system is broken. We need Congress to fix it.
The new policies have reduced the number of migrants crossing into the U.S. in January and February, but created a bottleneck on the other side of the border.
Days earlier, at this women’s shelter, we met families who’d been stuck in Juarez, for months.
Every morning at 9 a.m., women frantically try to refresh the government app hoping to get an appointment to enter the U.S.
We watched with Karina Breceda who runs the shelter.
By 9:05, all the appointments, and hope, were gone.
Karina Breceda: It’s lottery with people’s lives: with, with people’s families, with people’s livelihoods, with people’s well-being.
Sharyn Alfonsi: The Biden Administration says this is more humane than what was going on before.
Karina Breceda: It is not ‘the most humane’ process because the most vulnerable aren’t, aren’t getting access to it.
Mothers in Juarez, Mexico try to log onto the CPB One app.
60 Minutes
Like Guadalupe Vazquez. She told us her husband had been murdered in southwest Mexico, and one of her sons had been shot in the eye and needed bullet fragments removed.
She said she’s been trying for two months to get an appointment to legally enter the U.S.
Guadalupe (translation): I’m willing to wait to get an appointment, even if it takes long, but I’m going to make it.
Sharyn Alfonsi: If you’re not able to get an appointment on the app, h– what’s your plan?
Guadalupe (translation): I’ll try to cross with a smuggler, and I’ll cross with my children.
We saw more desperation outside a nearby cathedral. Cristina Coronado runs a food program there.
Cristina Coronado: (translation): Juarez is in a moment of crisis. More than 10,000 migrants are now in the city. And most of them are sleeping in the streets.
Sharyn Alfonsi: As people wait here, are they getting frustrated?
Cristina Coronado: (translation): Very frustrated… very angry… very confused…
These men told us they’d been trying in vain for weeks to get an appointment on the CBP One app.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Oh, yeah. And it gets stuck, right?
Man who speaks English: All people see, one opportunity at 9 o’clock. No more. Five minutes. No more. Try again the next day.
Sharyn Alfonsi: You have to wait for tomorrow?
Man who speaks English: Tomorrow, tomorrow
Sharyn Alfonsi: We were in Juarez and we’re surrounded by a group of migrants. Everybody’s holding up the app, pointing to it saying, ‘It’s not working. It’s not working.’ And there’s frustration. And the numbers are growing.
Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, there’s
Sharyn Alfonsi: And the numbers are growing.
Alejandro Mayorkas: I will not represent to you, Sharyn, that it is flawless. But remember something: that to, to build a safe and orderly way, and we are continuing to build that, remember where we were two years ago.
The Biden Administration has reunited more than 600 children that were separated from their families at the border during the Trump administration. But now, the secretary is facing what could be another defining moment for the country.
On May 11th, Title 42, the pandemic-era public health order, will expire. That means without some new arrangement, the only illegal border crossers the U.S. could expel to Mexico would be Mexicans. Thousands of migrants are waiting at the border and thousands more are arriving every day.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Has Mexico agreed to take back non-Mexicans if Title 42 ends?
Alejandro Mayorkas: So we are in discussions with Mexico with regard to how they will handle any increase in the number of individuals seeking to migrate north.
Sharyn Alfonsi: If Mexico doesn’t accept other nationals, then what?
Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, we have all sorts of contingencies. I mean, that’s what we do.
Sharyn Alfonsi: It’s going to be complicated. It’s going to be expensive.
Alejandro Mayorkas: It is going to be complicated; it is going to be expensive. This has been complicated, expensive, and challenging for decades.
Produced by Andy Court. Associate Producer, Annabelle Hanflig. Associate Producer, Camilo Montoya-Galvez. Associate Producer, Julie Holstein. Broadcast Associate, Elizabeth Germino. Edited by Joe Schanzer.
