.jpg)
On April 17, the US Senate declined to try Alejandro Mayorkas, US Secretary of Homeland Security, on two articles of impeachment sent by the US House of Representatives. The maneuver involved a majority of the Senate "taking well" two points of order raised by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to the effect that neither of the counts charged Mayorkas with "conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor," the standard for impeaching in the first place.
I disagree. Alejandro Mayorkas is clearly and unambiguously guilty on the first count, which charges that he "willfully and systematically refused to comply with Federal immigration laws."
Let's review the whole of federal immigration law:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." --- US Constitution, Article I, Section 9
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." US Constitution, 10th Amendment
That's the entirety of federal immigration law. There is no federal power to regulate immigration, no such power can be created without a constitution amendment, and, as John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in the court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."
Mayorkas was impeached for displaying insufficient enthusiasm in enforcing "laws" that aren't actual laws.
He should have been impeached for, and convicted of, violating the ACTUAL "Supreme Law of the Land" by enforcing those fake "laws" at all.
Unfortunately, both branches of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches, are co-conspirators in Mayorkas's crimes.
If the US government followed the US Constitution, the US would have "open borders," while the states would have free rein to adopt idiotic and tyrannical immigration policies like those of Texas ... which the feds are suing to nullify!
Lysander Spooner, a 19th century American anarchist, explained this kind perpetual farce better than anyone before or since:
"{W]hether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
We're not going to "Constitution" ourselves out of our problems. Politicians always have ignored, and will always ignore, any parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient --- not just on this issue, but on all issues.