LISTEN HERE:
Sunday marked a pivotal moment as House Republicans heightened their push towards impeachment action against Alejandro Mayorkas, the current Secretary of Homeland Security. His handling of the ongoing border challenges has sparked deep concern, ultimately leading to this call for impeachment.
This was not simply an empty threat. Currently, two articles of impeachment have been proposed by Republicans against Secretary Mayorkas. The first one asserts that he stubbornly and systematically declined to comply with legal mandates; the second suggests that he fractured the bond of public trust through the willful dissemination of falsehoods and intentional blocking of lawful DHS oversight.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Mark Green, from Tennessee, stood confident in their efforts. He claimed the impeachment articles collectively presented a powerful, persuasive, and incontrovertible argument that Secretary Mayorkas should face impeachment.
BREAKING: House Republicans just unveiled articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the first step to impeach him.
NOTE: They accuse him of willfully and systematically refusing to comply with the law and breaching public trust by knowingly… pic.twitter.com/GcaE7zVctw
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) January 28, 2024
Sunday was not quiet at the Department of Homeland Security either. They issued a memo in response to the proceedings, arguing that Republicans are undermining bipartisan solutions, disregarding facts, expert opinions, laws and the Constitution itself in their pursuit to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
News outlets such as NBC broadcast this development, shedding light on the criticism that Mayorkas had received from the Homeland Security Committee. Central to the critique was how Mayorkas spearheaded family reunification parole programs, which enabled certain immigrants to remain in the U.S. while awaiting their immigration visas – actions deemed unlawful by the committee.
According to the first impeachment article, rather than focusing on these programs, Mayorkas could have made better use of resources to enforce laws concerning individuals crossing the border illegally.
The DHS defended its approach on Sunday by asserting that the agency has followed the incarceration requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act ‘as far as feasibly possible.’ The Department further argued that a ‘demand for absolute detention would equate to all former DHS secretaries being impeached since the inception of the department.’
In the second article, Mayorkas is accused of providing false testimonies to Congress, alleging that the border situation was under control while simultaneously obstructing Congress’s oversight.
Chairman Green argued on Sunday that the legislative branch has the responsibility to ensure the executive branch adheres to and executes the laws that have been passed. In his view, Secretary Mayorkas’ apprehension to this defies the rule of law and is in stark contrast to what the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they conferred impeachment authority.
His argument further underscored the necessity to regard this offense to the government’s checks and balances, the Constitution, and the American populace as a serious matter.
Preceding these escalations, a hearing was convened last week to explore the potential impeachment of Mayorkas. During this hearing, a comment to a mother who had lost her daughter due to a fentanyl overdose, widely perceived as insensitive, was made by a Democrat member.
Josephine Dunn, who had experienced the tragic loss of her 26-year-old daughter Ashley to a fentanyl-related incident, had been invited by Republicans to the hearing to share her story. During the hearing, Representative Dan Goldman made an upsetting remark to Dunn, suggesting she was a pawn in the Republicans’ agenda.
This comment sparked outrage from Dunn, who shared her thoughts on the situation with the Daily Caller on Friday. She told them that Rep. Goldman had no knowledge of her understandings, education, or experiences related to these matters – particularly in relation to misdemeanors or high crimes.
Furthermore, she voiced her opinions about the flawed assumption that her stance was merely to pour more money into a broken system. ‘How off-base it is to think I would hand-in my thoughts to someone else. I am capable of independent thinking and can definitely voice my own thoughts,’ she added, as her concluding words.
More News Here: Real News Now
