Impeach Biden over the Security Catastrophe He’s Caused at the Border

It seems the majority of people coming to the border are escaping their country due to violence and threats against their families. How would temporary jobs solve their problem? Those who do want to work are mostly farm workers and since Covid farm work has slowed way down and may not recover for some time. Republicans don't trust Democrats when it comes to comprehensive immigration bills because they were burnt during the Reagan administration when thousands of illegal immigrants were granted citizenship yet the border remained unsecured. This is why Republicans want the border secured first fulfilling the Democrats promise.

 

Obama tried to do comprehensive immigration reform in 2013 when he lost control of congress. Obama had 60 senators and the House in 2009 but Obama waited until he lost congress to do the immigration reform. Same things with Biden, he now wants to do comprehensive immigration reform after House went to GOP.

Neither side wants to resolve immigration reform. Broken immigration reform is good for both sides. On the right, it energies the right to vote. On the other side, Latinos thinks Democrats at least do the lip service and don’t demonize and call their neighbor and friends “criminal” , so they vote for Democrats.

For decades corporate America didn’t want to resolve the immigration reform because cheap labor was good for business. But now we have so much labor shortage, corporate America wants immigration reform but today Corporate lobbyist has less influence in Washington then they had in 90s. Politician still cozy up to lobbyist , but since the revolution of social media, politician’s real money and power comes from primary voter.

The part confuses me about GOP is that why they don’t change their immigration policy. Not many liberal atheists migrate to America from Sweden or Finland. Fact is most immigrants from South America and Asia are social conservative and economic conservative. If GOP change their immigration policy and stop demonizing immigrants , 70% immigrants would support GOP.

 

Since Regan administration, Republican president were in power 16 years ( Bush+Bush+Trump). Can you tell me why they didn’t secure border?

 

No options were off the table including barriers where they are highly effective.

 

He can control the border while Congress debates and passes immigration law. He does not need Congress to enforce our borders and protect our national security. Trump provided that.

 

A total misrepresentation of what occurred you know.

 

I whole heartily agree with the sentiment, but principle won't let me pursue impeachment for anything other than what the framers intended, the egregious lowering of the bar by Pelosi, et al not withstanding.

 

Faithfully execute his duties as President to protect our national security.

The Reps better learn to okay as hard a ball as the Dems else they are doomed.

 

If Repub's negotiating on immigration reform is conditional on "securing the border" then reform will never happen because securing the border is impossible.

 

I noticed a typo there. I think you meant to say when Repubs lowered the bar by impeaching Clinton for lying about the circumstances surrounding an affair. As opposed to Trump who was impeached for orchestrating an insurrection and extorting a foreign leader to obtain election assistance in contradiction with US law.

 

Then why bother have an immigration policy when people can just walk into the US?

 

Impeachment is a waste of resources unless conviction and removal from office is a near certainty.

 

Not any typo in the least. While I did not personally support Clinton's impeachment it at least was about a couple of prima facie felonies violating the trust of the presidency. Unlike Trump's impeachment which were over made up and stuff fabricated out of whole cloth. Trump was impeached because the Democrats loathed him and were 100% convinced that he stole the election from them -- not a single thing more.

 

I concur, but it is not listed in the Constitution.

That may very well be true, but my annoying principles keep getting in my quixotic way.

 

Faithfully execute the office of the President...........
Right there in the oath of office. Execute the office meaning all the functions and duties of the office. Of which includes protecting our borders and controlling entry and protecting our national security.

 

That is true, but, maybe being picky, it is not in the justifications for impeachment.

 

Why not? If a President decided they no longer wanted to attend meetings or take phone calls or sign bills and just would rather go home to Delaware and play golf but remain President you don't think an impeachment and removal would be appropriate. Remember misdemeanor under the impeachment clause is not necessarily criminal misdemeanor the term means "misbehavior" as used in the Constitution.

"Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[8]

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

I would think not faithfully executing the office as the oath states would fall under such a misdemeanor.

 

Why not because the framers purposely chose not to define misdemeanors explicitly. They were very avid about constraining the English criteria for impeachment, and were strongly against "maladministration" being grounds for impeachment because they adamantly felt politics should play no role in impeachment (as it did in spades with Trump, with Johnson, probably Nixon, and maybe a little with Clinton). However, you make a good point. I doubt if your examples would satisfy impeachment criteria, but I think moving the white house to Saudi Arabia certainly would, and there is a very fuzzy line between the two. I might be over doing it and bending the twig back too far because I am a strong constitutionalist and abhor the unconstitutional impeachments of Trump

 

Yes the first drafts were impeachment for "maladministration" which they believed too vague an adopted a more familiar "high crimes and misdemeanors" which again not carrying out the duties of the office would meet. For instance when in 1941 Congress declared war but a totally opposite of FDR President another Wilson for example refused to order the military into battle Congress could impeach and remove for failure to faithfull execute his office. Or if he DID so in violation of the War Powers act.

Here we have a cabinet secretary refusing to carry out his duties and certainly failing on the job threatening our national security and as a office which comes under advise and consent Congress having even more say so in the performance.

 

Except the thread is about impeaching a president. I can't explain it thoroughly but in my mind the bar for impeaching civil officers is not quite as high as the bar for impeaching presidents because they are not elected officials, although the strict constitutional wording is exactly the same.

 

And impeach Mayorkis and Harris. As I said the cabinet officials come under congressional oversight because they must be confirmed by the Senate so yes there is a lower bar but misdemeanor when applied to a President or VP does not require a criminal act.

 

No but it does require egregious conduct. Mayorkis and Garland I might go along with, but not Biden or Harris -- for principle, not desire.

 

I would most assuredly call Biden and Harris's conduct vis-a-vis the border HIGHLY egregious.

But then the Dems have turned impeachment merely as a way to tag an opposition candidate to prevent them from running again and that goose souse thingy.

 

I am interested in what the law says and how it is applied correctly. Remember, if we use your idea of thinking, it is not if, but how much for wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the government, mail fraud, and so forth. Are you sure you want to go that route?

 

Well, they can't get welfare benefits, so working is the only option. And given their low skills and their ability to work hard, the Blue Card would be an easy path for legal entry and work without the undue burden of a business to sponsor them for instance. In other words, the capital market will dictate the jobs for them and allow them to freely enter and leave the country without the idea of being illegal. This is assuming that the definition and the requirements for refugee/asylee has not changed.

If the definition of asylee and refugee requirements does change to their favor, then they can apply at the border, and be able to live here and work here legally, until their paperwork is completed. And that too is a win-win scenario.