[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
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.
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.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Amid tensions over the use of razor wire on the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, the state’s Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick responded to a question about a possible “civil war” during an interview on Sunday.
Tension between federal and state units in Texas remains after President Joe Biden‘s administration secured a significant win over Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Monday after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow the temporary removal of razor wire along the southern border while litigation over the issue proceeds. The Court’s decision has sparked anger among Republicans who support the measures taken by Abbott and his administration to fight illegal immigration in the state. Tensions over the measures escalated as the federal government raised environmental and humanitarian concerns about the deterrent.
Meanwhile, Abbott and his administration have held firm on their stance to continue the razor wire policy as the Republican governor claims that Texas has a constitutional right to self-defense and his state was “acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border” by using the razor wire.
In an interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with host Maria Bartiromo, Patrick said that Texas does not want a confrontation with the Biden administration. However, when asked by Bartiromo whether this situation will “turn into a civil war,” Patrick responded by reiterating that Texas has a constitutional right.
“We believe constitutionally we are right, we have a right to defend our citizens, we have a right to defend this country and we are just doing our job. These young women and men who serve our National Guard and our DPS these are the best of the best why would he want to send anyone down to confront them,” he said.
Newsweek has reached out to Patrick’s office and the White House via email for comment.
Patrick’s comments come after some Democrats, including Texas Representative Joaquin Castro and former Representative Beto O’Rourke have urged Biden to federalize Texas’ National Guard to stop Abbott from defying the Court’s ruling.
Patrick previously responded to this possibility by stating it would be a mistake.
“The biggest mistake the Biden administration could make would be confronting law enforcement or our military, our National Guard at our border, at this park, when we are actually doing the job that the American people want,” Patrick told Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Friday.
Concerns over a confrontation came after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked Texas to stop preventing federal Border Patrol agents access to Eagle Pass’ Shelby Park. A letter from the DHS to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week demanded full access to the park by Friday, however, Paxton rejected the request.
Biden has signaled that he’s open to “massive changes” on border policy, asking Congress to embrace a bipartisan Senate deal that would pair border enforcement measures with aid to Ukraine to help in its ongoing war with Russia. In addition, he stated on Saturday at a political event in South Carolina that he would be willing to close the U.S.-Mexico border if lawmakers would only send him a bill to sign.
Additionally, this is not the first time concerns over a possible civil war regarding the handling of the southern border have been mentioned as some have taken to X, formerly Twitter, to raise the question.
Internet personality Terrence Williams told his 1.7 million followers: “CIVIL WAR IS COMING SOON.”
“You are trying to start a civil war,” Williams told the president in a video posted online. “You got everybody in the state of Texas all bent up.”
Conservative commentator Carmine Sabia agreed, writing on X, “Joe Biden is about to start a Civil War over his treasonous handling of the border.”
YouTube streamer Tim Pool said on a stream that it “looks like a Fort Sumter-esque type scenario,” referencing the first battle of the Civil War.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
President Joe Biden met with the four Congressional leaders on Wednesday to discuss ways to secure a bipartisan national security deal that would fund border enforcement efforts and unlock military aid for Ukraine.
While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are united in their support for Ukraine, House Speaker Mike Johnson, who leads the Republican-controlled lower chamber, has been noncommittal regarding continued aid to the embattled European country, insisting the border must be dealt with first.
However, Johnson recently criticized a prospective bipartisan Senate border deal, which Schumer said could receive a Senate vote next week. He argued that the solution to the ongoing wave of migrant crossings is the GOP’s border and immigration, H.R. 2, a measure that would restrict immigration and fund border security efforts, which passed the House without a single Democratic vote. On Wednesday, he showed some signs of softening his firm position.
“I told the president what I have been saying for many months and that is that we must have change at the border, substantive policy change,” Johnson said in an address following the meeting. “We’re not insistent on a particular name of a piece of legislation, but we are insistent that the elements have to be meaningful.”
Johnson’s comments come during a tenuous time amid his newfound leadership where some conservative members of his party voiced the threat of removing him from the speakership due to disputes over funding levels.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, escalated the situation, after telling an Axios reporter she would introduce a motion to vacate — the procedure used to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — if Johnson supports a Ukraine aid package.
With such threats looming, Johnson has displayed some hesitancy on taking firm public positions.
Punchbowl News, a Congress-focused digital news outlet, reported earlier this week that Johnson told Republicans during a Sunday call that he believes the border would be best handled under a future Trump presidency, casting doubt whether he’d bring a Senate deal to vote.
Senate Republican whip John Thune, a potential McConnell successor, pushed back on that idea, telling reporters “there’s absolutely no way that we would get the kind of border policy that’s being talked about right now” because Democrats would not agree to such enforcement provisions under Trump. If Johnson were to reject such a deal and avoid a Ukraine vote, some believe he could be defying the wishes of the majority of his party.
“If you strip the Ukraine portion out of the larger bill and just put Ukraine on the floor as a standalone vote in the House, it gets over 300 votes,” Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington told Newsweek. “It’s just a matter of being willing to stand up to the MAGA Republicans who don’t support Ukraine.”
Smith has unique insight on the issue given that he serves as the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, which is known for its unique level of bipartisanship due to its role overseeing national security matters. Smith’s Republican counterpart Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama has notably spoken in favor Ukraine.
With Congress divided among 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats, it would take less than half of the Republican Conference to support Ukraine to exceed the 300-vote total Smith predicted, given that all Democrats appear united on the issue. A vote in September 2023 on aid for Ukraine also showed that most Republican House members still supported continued funding.
Ultimately though, Johnson’s decision will be one influenced by politics, politics around whether his party can afford to reject a bipartisan border deal and whether his party’s base align more closely with McConnell and the GOP senators who support Ukraine or Marjorie Taylor Greene and the conservative lawmakers, most of whom serve in the House, who oppose the effort.
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming has served in both chambers of Congress. When it comes to which body she believes better represents the desires of GOP voters, who will ultimately guide the party’s longer-term national security decisions, she gives the edge to House.
“Most [House] members, because they’re up for reelection every two years, I think have a very close connection to their constituents,” Lummis told Newsweek. “So, they’re more current, I think, than senators.”
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
A woman and two children drowned in the Rio Grande on Friday while trying to enter the U.S. near a section of the southern border where Texas National Guard soldiers have prevented federal Border Patrol agents from processing and rescuing migrants.
Federal officials and a Texas congressman said National Guard soldiers deployed by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did not allow Border Patrol agents to attempt to rescue the migrants. Earlier this week, Texas National Guard soldiers abruptly seized control of a public park in Eagle Pass that Border Patrol had been using to hold migrants, marking the latest escalation in an intensifying political and legal feud between Abbott and President Biden over U.S. border policy.
On Friday night, Border Patrol identified six migrants in the Rio Grande who were in distress near the park, known as Shelby Park, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar said in a statement Saturday. Federal agents, Cuellar added, unsuccessfully attempted to contact Texas state officials about the emergency by phone. Then, when Border Patrol agents went to the park and asked to be allowed to render aid to the migrants, they were denied entry, according to Cuellar.
“Texas Military Department soldiers stated they would not grant access to the migrants — even in the event of an emergency — and that they would send a soldier to investigate the situation,” Cuellar said, noting that Mexican officials recovered three bodies on Saturday.
“This is a tragedy, and the State bears responsibility,” he added.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press, said Cuellar’s description of the events was accurate. In a statement Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Texas officials obstructed Border Patrol’s attempts to rescue the migrants on Friday.
“Tragically, a woman and two children drowned last night in the Shelby Park area of Eagle Pass, which was commandeered by the State of Texas earlier this week,” the department said. “In responding to a distress call from the Mexican government, Border Patrol agents were physically barred by Texas officials from entering the area.”
White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández said Texas soldiers “blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance” to the migrants.
“While we continue to gather facts about the circumstances of these tragic deaths, one thing is clear: Governor Abbott’s political stunts are cruel, inhumane, and dangerous,” Fernández Hernández added.
The Texas Military Department, which oversees the state National Guard, confirmed it was contacted by Border Patrol on Friday night “in reference to a migrant distress situation.” It said one of its units “actively searched the river with lights and night vision goggles” but found no migrants in distress or bodies.
The state National Guard soldiers ended their search after detecting Mexican officials “responding to an incident on the Mexico side of the river bank,” the Texas Military Department added. According to the department, Border Patrol said Mexican authorities did not need help.
“(The Texas Military Department) maintains water rescue equipment and actively works with local EMS to aid migrants needing medical care,” the department said in its statement late Saturday.
The Texas National Guard took control of Shelby Park late Wednesday, saying it was an operation designed to deter illegal crossings by migrants. The drastic move alarmed local officials in Eagle Pass, who said they did not approve it, as well as the federal government, which alerted the Supreme Court of Texas’ actions overnight on Thursday.
Federal officials said Texas has used armed soldiers, vehicles and fences to physically block Border Patrol agents and at least one federal National Guard soldier from accessing roughly 2.5 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. One of the concerns raised by federal officials in a filing before the Supreme Court was that Texas’ actions would prevent Border Patrol from helping migrants in distress.
On Saturday, DHS called on Texas officials to relent.
“Texas’s blatant disregard for federal authority over immigration poses grave risks,” the department said. “The State of Texas should stop interfering with the U.S. Border Patrol’s enforcement of U.S. law.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Washington — While focused on plans to deter illegal border crossings, the ongoing immigration negotiations in the Senate have also included conversations about Afghan evacuees, the children of high-skilled visa-holders, and work permits for asylum-seekers, three people familiar with the talks told CBS News.
For weeks, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate have been trying to strike a deal on a series of policies they hope will reduce unlawful border crossings, which have reached all-time highs over the past three years. Top Biden administration officials, led by White House deputy chief Natalie Quillian, have repeatedly met with Senate negotiators — Sens. James Lankford (R), Chris Murphy (D) and Kyrsten Sinema (I) — each week since mid-December.
Up until recently, the talks centered on tightening U.S. asylum laws, with negotiators focused on plans to allow border agents to swiftly expel migrants when a certain level in illegal crossings is reached, raise the standard to pass asylum interviews and expand expedited deportations of families traveling with children.
But negotiators have put other immigration items on the table, the three sources said, requesting anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. Most notably, there have been discussions to have the potential deal include the Afghan Adjustment Act, a bill that would allow tens of thousands of Afghans evacuated from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to gain permanent legal status. Those evacuees are currently in legal limbo, unless they have been granted asylum or special visas for those who assisted American military forces.
Also under consideration is a plan to provide relief to the children of immigrants working in the U.S. on H-1B visas for high-skilled workers. This population, known as “Documented Dreamers,” often face self-deportation when they turn 21 because they lose the legal status derived from their parents’ visas.
Another proposal being negotiated would make certain migrants eligible to work in the U.S. legally if they pass their preliminary asylum interviews. The plan would likely be welcomed by Democratic leaders who have complained about receiving large numbers of migrants who can’t work and sustain themselves.
The three items under discussion, which have not been previously reported, could make it easier for Democrats to support a border deal that, if finalized, would likely include stricter asylum and deportation provisions that have already alarmed progressives and advocates for migrants. But they may also fuel some divisions within Republicans ranks, since conservatives have increasingly rejected efforts to legalize immigrants or grant them work permits.
While all sides have signaled progress in recent weeks, the White House and Senate negotiators have not reached a final deal on overhauling U.S. border policy, which Republicans have said is a prerequisite to them supporting further military aid to Ukraine.
The main sticking point centers on the immigration parole authority, a 1950s law the Biden administration has used at unprecedented scale to resettle refugee-like populations — such as the Afghan evacuees and Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion — and to divert migrants away from the U.S. border by offering them opportunities to enter the country legally. While it does not offer recipients permanent legal status, parole allows federal officials to quickly welcome foreigners who would otherwise not be eligible to enter the country.
After telling congressional Democrats it would reject any limits on parole, the White House has recently put revisions to it on the table, recognizing that there’s no path to a deal without it since Republicans have not dropped the demand, people familiar with the internal deliberations said. Still, the administration does not want to see the authority gutted, since it has relied on it so heavily to reduce pressure at the U.S. southern border.
One limit suggested by Republican lawmakers — who view the administration’s use of parole as an abuse of the authority — would impose a numerical cap on the number of people who could be allowed to enter the U.S. via parole.
While the White House and lawmakers have continued to debate limits on parole, they have reached a general consensus on the border-related provisions, including making initial asylum screenings, known as credible fear interviews, harder to pass.
They have also been working on plans to expand a fast-track deportation program for families traveling with children and the creation of a legal authority that would allow the U.S. to summarily expel migrants to Mexico.
One proposal being considered would empower border officials to expel migrant adults and families from the U.S. unless they affirmatively ask for asylum, three sources said. The expulsions would be carried out similarly to those authorized by Title 42, the Trump-era pandemic-related order that expired last year. But it would be triggered by a certain threshold in migrant crossings, not public health conditions.
Those who are not expelled because they affirmatively claim fear of being persecuted in Mexico would undergo an asylum screening with a heightened, more-difficult-to-pass standard while in U.S. custody. Migrants who fail these interviews would be expelled from the U.S., while those who pass them would generally be released into the U.S. with access to work permits.
Getty Images
The Biden administration’s openness to stricter border measures and sweeping restrictions on asylum, some of which resemble Trump-era policies, represents a remarkable shift. Early on in his tenure, President Biden vowed to “restore” the U.S. asylum system and reject Trump-era policies that “contravened our values and caused needless human suffering.”
“We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during one of the Democratic primary debates in 2019.
But three years into his presidency, Mr. Biden finds himself facing a humanitarian, operational and political crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border of unprecedented proportions. Over two-third of Americans disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of the situation there, according to a recent CBS News poll. More recently, Democratic mayors of cities struggling to house migrants have joined Republicans in criticizing the White House’s response to the crisis.
Of late, about a quarter-million migrants per month have been processed by U.S. border authorities. In December alone, Customs and Border Protection processed more than 300,000 migrants at and in between official ports of entry along the southern border — a record high.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
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.
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.”
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.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]