Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was able to deflect the impeachment hopes of House Republicans on Tuesday since they were not able to get enough votes to remove him from his position. Multiple reports confirm that there were four Republicans in particular that essentially agreed with their Democratic counterparts to keep him in place.
What Was The Purpose Of The Impeachment Case?
The purpose of the impeachment cases was to highlight immigration law compliance and the accusations of Secretary Mayorkas refusing to comply with them. The GOP believed that his refusal to comply led to an “invasion” at the US-Mexico border.
Other documentation related to the case claims that Alejandro “knowingly made false statements” about the border and, as a result, breached the trust of the general public.
Who Were The Four Republicans That Voted Against Impeachment?
All Democratic representatives voted against the charges to impeach Mayorkas. There were four Republicans who shifted the vote in favor of the Democratic party (214-216) on Tuesday: Blake Moore (Utah), Tom McClintock (California), Mike Gallagher (Wisconsin), and Ken Buck (Colorado).
The demographics of the House show that the Republican party holds the majority. However, there is a very slim line that separates the two parties. As a result, they would not be able to retain the majority vote if more than two Republicans voted in favor of the Democrats.
How Blake Moore Called A Last Second Audible
Blake Moore of Utah reportedly made a last-second decision to change his vote to prevent there from being a 215-215 tie. According to the law, a tie would have stopped the bill from ever being brought up again.
Even though he switched his vote, he immediately moved for the bill to be reconsidered in the future. That motion was adopted by House Speaker Johnson.
Tom McClintock Shifts The Focus To The ‘Ballot Box’
It was not surprising that Tom McClintock voted against the impeachment of Mayorkas on Tuesday. He published a 10-page memo that was released on Tuesday speaking against the impeachment.
According to a recent social media post, he stated that the “only way to stop the border invasion” was to focus on replacing the Biden administration “at the ballot box.” He further expressed that simply “swapping one leftist for another” was a “fantasy” that “solves nothing” and “excuses Biden’s culpability.”
Why Did Ken Buck Vote Against The Impeachment?
Buck did not hold back on expressing his disagreement with the vote to impeach Mayorkas days before the vote occurred. He argued that the removal of the Homeland Security secretary would open a door that Republicans “don’t want to open.”
He further warned that future presidents and their respective administration would have to face the same level of “scrutiny” since that type of vote would set a precedent. In an interview with MSNBC last week, Buck expressed that it is simple a “policy difference” and not a “high crime”, “misdemeanor” or “impeachable offense.”
Gallagher Referenced ‘Incompetence’, Still Voted Against Impeachment
Mike Gallagher also agreed that impeaching Mayorkas would have essentially “opened Pandora’s box” in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal. Even though he voted against the impeachment, he still expressed the “incompetence” of Mayorkas that was referenced within the first article of impeachment.
However, Gallagher further explained that “incompetence doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.” Neither Buck, McClintock, nor Gallagher defended the job performance of Mayorkas in their statements. However, each of them argued that a Cabinet official should not have to face impeachment just for executing the policies enforced by the president.
Dissecting The Border Security Issue
The Republican Party has set their sights on Mayorkas in recent months with the goal of impeaching him as they continue to dissect the way that President Joe Biden has handled the border security issue.
The argument is that Congressional Republicans believe President Biden has enough authority to stop the flow of migrants that cross the US-Mexico border. They claim that Biden entered negotiations with senators through a bipartisan deal to expand that authority.
The Impact Of The Bipartisan Proposal In Congress
According to the Associated Press, the bipartisan proposal within Congress (valued at approximately $118 billion) would revamp the asylum system. This would make room for tougher enforcement with expedited actions.
It would also provide presidents with the additional power to expel migrants without delay if authorities became overwhelmed with asylum applications. In addition, the proposal would lead to an extra $20 billion in funding.
How Did Mike Johnson React To The Bill?
House Speaker Mike Johnson made it clear on Tuesday that refused to put the bill on the House floor as-is since it would presumably become a “magnet” towards illegal immigration. According to Johnson, giving “extraordinary authority” to the “architect of the catastrophe” would be of no benefit.
Earlier this month, Johnson slammed the border deal on social media as well. In a Twitter post, he claimed that the bill was “worse” than they expected and would not “come close” to ending the border issue. He further expressed his agreement with the belief that “the border never closes” under that legislation.
Why Do Republicans Want To Fight The Bipartisan Proposal?
Congressional Republicans essentially want to fight the bipartisan proposal to prevent Biden from gaining a victory in the immigration issue. It is important to note that this proposal could potentially transform some of the most substantial border problems.
Achieving that goal make this package historically be viewed as the most important immigrant legislation in over a decade. President Biden stated on Tuesday that Republicans were requesting this type of bill to be passed “just months ago” to provide support for Israel and Ukraine but that now they are essentially saying “never mind.”
