Here's the latest news on the impeachment vote.
House Republicans' impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas boils down to a simple accusation: that he broke the law by refusing to enforce immigration statutes designed to prevent migrants entering the United States without permission.
The Homeland Security Committee approved articles of impeachment against Mr. Mayorkas on a party-line vote, paving the way for a vote in the full House. If impeached, he would be only the second Cabinet secretary to receive this punishment in American history, the first in 148 years and the only one charged by Congress for nothing more than carrying out the policies of the president he serves .
The Republican party argues that the secretary's failure to enforce certain aspects of immigration law is itself a constitutional crime. But in the United States, the president and his administration have wide latitude to control the border, and Mr. Mayorkas has not overstepped those powers.
Here's a look at the holes in the impeachment case against him.
The government has broad powers over how and when to detain migrants.
The articles of impeachment the committee approved accuse Mr. Mayorkas of ignoring several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that say deportable migrants “shall be detained” until they can be removed from the country. The articles allege that the Secretary pursued a “catch-and-release” scheme to allow unauthorized migrants into the United States, knowing that it would be difficult or even impossible to ensure that they later appear in immigration court would appear for removal proceedings.
What the indictment fails to take into account, however, is that Mr. Mayorkas also has the legal authority to determine which migrants should be prioritized for detention, given limited bed space and long backlogs in immigration courts.
“Congress loves to pass laws that are impossible to implement,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, adding that enforcing detention mandates is often “a matter of resources.”
The United States has not had enough detention beds to accommodate the number of migrants awaiting deportation proceedings for years, long before President Biden took office. Even the Trump administration allowed migrants into the country because the maximum detention capacity — about 55,000 in 2019 — was not enough to accommodate the number of arrivals seeking entry. Former President Donald J. Trump's Remain in Mexico policy, which required certain migrants to wait for their immigration court dates outside the United States, which Republicans want to reinstate, did not apply to all migrants filing claims at the border.
Parole allows migrants to temporarily live and work in the United States.
One of the articles of impeachment states that Mr. Mayorkas “has mass paroled aliens to free them from mandatory detention,” again with the intent to undermine the law.
But the immigration law gives the executive branch the authority to allow migrants to temporarily live and work in the United States for humanitarian reasons, or if their admission would be for the benefit of the public. Decisions about who should be released on parole must be made on a case-by-case basis, and there are no restrictions on the criteria the Secretary may consider in determining who is eligible. There is also no legal limit on the number of migrants who can enter the country under the authority.
Several past administrations, including those of former Presidents Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, have relied on parole to bring members of certain vulnerable immigrant groups to the United States.
The Biden administration has built on existing programs that allow nationals of certain economically troubled Central and South American countries with sponsors already in the United States to apply for parole. It has also opened similar routes for Afghans and Ukrainians fleeing war, and introduced a mobile app known as CBP One to streamline migrants through ports of entry.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have tried to close these roads, passing legislation last year that would close almost all of them.
Mr. Mayorkas has clashed with Republicans over what constitutes “operational control” of the border.
House Republicans have also accused Mr. Mayorkas of lying under oath about the state of the border when he testified in 2022 that the department had “operational control.” He later explained that he was using a definition of Border Patrol, which defines “operational control” as “the ability to detect, respond and interdict border penetrations in areas considered high priority.” But that differs from the standard in a 2006 law, the Secure Fence Act, which defines the term as the absence of any unlawful migrant or drug crossings.