The Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was recently impeached (after a failed first attempt on February 6, 214-216) by an extremely close 214-213 vote in the House. He is the first cabinet secretary to be impeached since William Belknap in 1876.
The vote was essentially divided along party lines, as all 214 votes for impeachment were from Republicans and all but three of the 213 votes in opposition were Democrats (the three Republicans that voted against impeachment stated that his actions were not severe enough to warrant an impeachment), whereas the Democrats were united in their opposition (two Democratic representatives were unable to vote due to COVID-19 and a delayed flight--had either voted, the impeachment would have failed again). House majority leader Steve Scalise proved critical, returning from cancer treatment to vote for impeachment after missing the previous attempt.
Alejandro Mayorkas. (https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/commissioners-and-directors/alejandro-mayorkas)
Democrats argue that the standards of impeachment written in the Constitution, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," were not reached, and that actions as severe as impeachments should not be used to express differences in political ideology and opinions about policy. Senate majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, said that House Republicans "failed to present any evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense," and President Biden condemned the impeachment as well.
Republicans in favor of the impeachment blame Mayorkas for the current state of immigration, including the influxes that have overwhelmed states like Texas and even cities not near the border like Chicago, New York, Boston, and Denver. Mark E. Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee where the impeachment originated (not the House Judiciary Committee where impeachments typically begin, as we've learned in class) stated that their investigations "demonstrated beyond any doubt that Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and systemically refused to comply with the laws of the United States, and breached the public trust." The two charges against Mayorkas include replacing Trump-era policies like Remain in Mexico and violating the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by implementing a "catch-and-release" system, as well as breaching public trust by misrepresenting the state of the border.
The three Republicans that voted against impeachment, from left to right: Ken Buck, Tom McClintock, and Mike Gallagher. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html)
As we've seen in the past months, impeachments have become much more commonly used as political weapons, although convictions, which we've learned require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, are much rarer. The charges against Mayorkas have been called "dead on arrival" in the Senate, which has a Democrat majority, due to this high bar. As a result, many have questioned whether this is a publicity stunt by the Republicans, who may be hoping to draw attention to immigration, which has emerged as a prominent concern ahead of the presidential election this year, in order to build support for Trump and his much more aggressive stance on immigration policy (if not for political motives, why impeach Mayorkas after Republicans recently refused to support a bill with much more restrictive immigration measures?). Additionally, some have suggested that this may be part of House Speaker Mike Johnson's effort to stabilize his position and appease Trump. This also relates to what we've recently covered in class about the balance between Congress and the bureaucracy and the role Congress plays as the "watchdog", although in this case, the check on power does not seem to be being used as intended.
Political motives aside, it is definitely true that the border has been under a lot of pressure during the relaxed restrictions of the Biden administration. In 2022, the Border Patrol recorded 2.2 million illegal border crossings, a record amount (although previous numbers are considered extremely undercounted). However, while border policy has been very far from perfect and is definitely an extremely pressing issue, I'd be tempted to agree with the Democrats in that impeachment is not warranted.
Sources :
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/us/politics/mayorkas-impeachment-house.htmlhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-second-house-vote/
https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-impeachment-border-immigration-congress-3bff388c2f0d1cc718f43d901bc50690
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68286641
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1230977868/house-impeachment-mayorkas-border
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/13/congress/mayorkas-impeached-house-gop-00141296
https://time.com/6590641/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-house-gop/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html
6 comments:
The almost clean split of Republican Democratic voting really goes to highlight the increasing polarization between the two groups. Not to mention the charges really do seem to be trumped up, as if Republicans are looking for any excuse to gain more power over the Democrats. Honestly, I find it a little amusing that the outcome would have been drastically different if one man didn't get COVID, or one flight wasn't delayed. Yet, it also seems like by excluding any individual strips the of their right to express their idea (in the form of a vote). Maybe it is not practical, but I feel like this case really highlights the importance of conducting votes in the presence of ALL members of the House.
I definitely agree with Rachel’s commentary, as well as Chin-Yi’s comment, because this does seem like a way the Republicans are trying to push the focus on the border crisis, similar to the situation with aid for Ukraine. Although the statistics aren’t in Mayorkas’ favor, whether or not his performance crossed the threshold for impeachment is debatable. However, this just emphasizes how the vague language of the Constitution can allow for a wide variety of interpretations.
Chin-yi makes a good point about the polarization within Congress, which I think we've also seen in quite a few instances recently. Also, I did look more into the missed votes case, and it seems like over COVID, proxy voting was allowed for a time, and there have been some proposals (i.e. for illness or childbirth), but none have passed. I think in the majority of the cases, the missed votes (I believe I saw a statistic about voting turnout in the House being around 96-97%) don't make as much of a difference as in this case.
I agree with Annie's statements about the Republicans' motives, and I think you make a very interesting connection to interpretation of the Constitution!
https://rollcall.com/2024/01/29/end-of-proxy-option-drives-increase-in-missed-house-votes/
I agree that this could be a publicity stunt by Republicans to show their discontent with the way the border has been handled (despite their rejection of the border bill proposed by Congress). By showing their discontent with the current laws, they prime public opinion to favor a change in leadership and elect Trump.
However, I dislike how impeachments are becoming more trivial, in the sense that they seem to be used more to express discontent with ideology than real disloyalty or corruption in government. The close party-line voting makes me feel like this impeachment does not truly represent a impeachable misconduct by Mayorkas. The two Democrats unable to vote reinforce this idea for me, as this impeachment was so close that its result was affected by timing and availability by the voters.
Similar to the views expressed to other people here, I agree that Republicans are becoming more aggressive with how they try and push their policies and agenda. I think it is disappointing to see the growing polarization between two parties, up to the point where a couple votes could change the outcome to a major decision. I am also concerned to see that impeachments are being used as a way to say "if you don't like/follow our idea, we'll just remove you from your job," as a way to scare some into submission. I think that perhaps the process of impeachment needs to be rethought if it is becoming easier and easier for politicians to utilize it for their own beneficial purposes.
I fully agree with Carole about how impeachments are being used to reflect ideology rather than truly for their intended purpose of fighting corruption in government, and how this is definitely not productive in terms of actually governing.
I also think Jake makes a very good point about the threat -- although it would take an actual conviction to make lasting/objective damage, which isn't very likely in this case, it's pretty possible that impeachment alone can hurt Mayorkas's (or any other target's) reputation and future career.
Post a Comment