51品茶

This week, the House Homeland Security Committee passed鈥痑rticles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas鈥痮n a party-line vote. To make the case for impeachment, the Committee鈥痬ajority has issued five impeachment reports and conducted two committee hearings,鈥痑ll鈥痙ominated by the false claim that the border is 鈥渙pen.鈥� These efforts have featured鈥痓latant scapegoating of immigrants for serious problems confronting the nation, including the fentanyl crisis.

The Committee鈥痬ajority has profound policy disagreements with the current administration鈥檚 immigration and border management,鈥痑s do we. Robust congressional oversight of DHS鈥攁 sprawling agency we have called to dismantle鈥搃s appropriate.鈥疊ut impeachment is an inappropriate and dangerous mechanism to use鈥痑s a weapon鈥痠n鈥痯olicy disputes and has no place where, as here, no 鈥淭reason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors鈥� are even conceivably on the table.

Government鈥痮fficials and judges occupy positions of public trust and significant power. When鈥痑n鈥痮fficer鈥痑buses that power by鈥痗ommitting鈥�鈥渢reason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,鈥濃�痶he Constitution provides鈥痠mpeachment鈥痶o hold them to鈥痑ccount鈥痑nd remove them from office.

But because it removes officers selected by our elected representatives, impeachment鈥痠s constitutionally circumscribed and is not appropriate as a means of political theater to express policy differences.鈥疉s documented by scholars such as Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky in鈥�鈥淗ow Democracies Die,鈥� the erosion of norms limiting the use of tactics intended to be reserved for extreme cases, such as impeachment, is one of the hallmarks of rising authoritarianism and a danger to democracy.

Impeachment must be reserved to address officials鈥� significant wrongdoing and should not be conflated with legitimate Congressional oversight or to prosecute policy or political fights. If Congress repeatedly abuses the impeachment power, it will lead to an鈥痚rosion of constitutional norms鈥痑nd bring the regular functions of government to a standstill.

The articles of impeachment accuse Secretary Mayorkas of failing to fulfill his statutory responsibility to secure the border because, for example, he terminated the construction contracts on the鈥�. They do not allege that he exceeded his authority to do so, much less that he has committed an impeachable offense.

The case against Secretary Mayorkas relies heavily on DHS鈥檚 alleged failure to heed statutory detention mandates. As explained in鈥�鈥痶o the鈥疭upreme Court,鈥痟owever,鈥痚very administration has exercised prosecutorial discretion regarding deportation鈥痑nd detention decisions. The鈥痝overnment鈥痗annot possibly鈥痙etain millions of immigrants at a time,鈥痑nd never has. The articles of impeachment also fault Mayorkas for using the President鈥檚 parole authority to allegedly circumvent a detention mandate. Yet for decades, presidents of both parties have used parole authority to help people affected by humanitarian disasters find safety in the U.S.

Contrary to some鈥痬embers鈥欌�痑ssertions, the fentanyl crisis has鈥痩ittle鈥痶o do with migration.鈥疍ata shows that most fentanyl coming into the U.S. is smuggled by U.S. citizens at ports of entry.鈥疉ccording to a鈥�,鈥痮nly 0.02 percent of people arrested by the Border Patrol鈥痜or crossing illegally into the U.S. possessed any fentanyl. 88 percent鈥痮f鈥痗onvicted fentanyl traffickers in鈥痜iscal year 2022鈥痺ere U.S. citizens according to鈥�.

They also allege that the U.S. stopped enforcing the laws and threw open the border. The reality is far, far different. Due to climate change, war, and a range of other global factors, record numbers of people are seeking safety in the United States鈥痑nd in many countries around the world.鈥疌ustoms and Border Patrol鈥�鈥痑s a result. Indeed, the 51品茶 has sued the Biden administration for illegally restricting the ability of families seeking a new life in the U.S. to apply for asylum.

Our immigration and border management systems need to be modernized, including鈥痓y鈥痠ncreasing resources鈥痠n鈥痯rocessing at ports of entry鈥痑nd in鈥痠mmigration courts鈥痑nd USCIS to address the enormous鈥痗ase backlogs, not to mention鈥痓y鈥痗reating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other long-term U.S.鈥痳esidents鈥痺ho are contributing members of U.S. communities. Year after year, however, Congress fails to legislate solutions.

As a matter of policy, the 51品茶鈥痝enerally鈥痶akes no position on the impeachment of political leaders. We do, however, warn against using impeachment as a tool for settling partisan scores or debating legitimate policy disputes. 鈥疘n the case of Secretary Mayorkas, we did not endorse his nomination and will not lobby鈥痬embers鈥痮f鈥疌ongress to vote for or against his impeachment. 鈥疊ut we urge members of both parties to consider the long-term impact of their votes on the functioning of our democratic institutions when they invoke their impeachment powers.