Both are related to immigration. A reminder that the standards for impeachment are vague. The U.S. Constitution compels Congress to impeach for
“treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” Essentially, it is however Congress wants to define those phrases.
Tell us more about the accusations, and how did Mayorkas respond?
You can read the full articles of impeachment
here.
The first charge, refusal to comply with the law, is a series of accusations that are centered around the increasing number of encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as increasing numbers of unaccompanied children, fentanyl trafficking and what Republicans say are large portions of unpatrolled border.
Mayorkas and Democrats have responded in several ways, including
a letter to House Republicans today. They argue that this is a political tool for Republicans who are pointing to a problem that has been growing for generations, with an immigration system that has repeatedly been left in status quo by Congresses and presidents of both parties.
Mayorkas argues that while Republicans might go about handling immigration and the border differently, that is a policy difference, not a crime nor failure to follow the law.
Mayorkas says under him, the department is expelling migrants and patrolling the border to the best of its capacity.
The second charge, breach of public trust, is related. On this, Republicans accuse Mayorkas of lying to Congress when he testified that the U.S. has “operational control” of the border.
This becomes a semantic and legal debate. Republicans are relying on, and read to Mayorkas, a definition in the
2006 Secure Fence Act, which says operational control means preventing “all unlawful entries into the United States.”
Republicans say that clearly there is unlawful entry and to say it is under control is a lie.
Mayorkas has said to them directly that that standard is not one that any Homeland Security secretary has ever met, and that by “operational control” he meant, essentially, that the U.S. controls the border.
What happens now?
We expect the full House to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week.
This could be a close vote, with Republicans holding just a one-seat majority at the moment. But they believe they have the majority vote needed.
From there, the impeachment would go to the Senate, where Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and his legal team are reviewing possible options.
This is a debated and not simple point. But
at least one legal scholar believes that Schumer does have options.
- He could hold a trial. (Which is what happened with the former secretary of war in 1876. He was acquitted.)
- He could consider making an argument that he can dismiss the articles outright.
- He could send them to a committee to consider before going to the full Senate.
In about a week’s time — and if the House approves the articles — Mayorkas could become the first Cabinet member to be impeached in nearly 150 years.
