webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

BORDER BS 2

EST 1 24

---

see immigr 5 open border 6 24

merri ok

see climate refugee immigrant

see violence 2nd civil war

see carAVAN XENOPHOBIA

SEE INVASION

---

RGA ltr 25 signed

---

===

mma 8 24

on Facebook, right-leaning content overwhelmingly dominates the immigration conversation

Right-leaning pages earned over 65% of interactions — nearly 19.5 million — on posts about immigration from U.S. politics and news pages during the first half of 2024

Written by Kayla Gogarty & Courtney Hagle

Research contributions from Carly Evans

Published 08/12/24

A new Media Matters analysis found that right-leaning pages dominated conversations about immigration on Facebook during the first half of this year. While right-leaning pages have posted about immigration a similar amount as ideologically nonaligned pages, right-leaning posts have received the greatest number of total interactions by far on related posts compared to other news and politics pages.

Our key findings include:

Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which right-leaning pages have dominated the conversation on Facebook amid prominent news cycles. In recent months, right-wing media and politicians have sought to make immigration a key issue in the 2024 election, relentlessly fearmongering about migrant crime as Trump leads the charge on demonizing migrants and smearing Democrats on the issue of immigration.

Related posts from right-leaning and ideologically nonaligned pages far outpaced those from left-leaning pages, with ideologically nonaligned pages accounting for 48% (or more than 38,100 posts), right-leaning pages accounting for 47% (or more than 37,300 posts), and left-leaning pages accounting for only 6% (or 4,400 posts).

Notably, right-leaning pages earned the most interactions on immigration-related posts, with nearly 19.5 million interactions, or 65%. Left-leaning pages earned over 5.8 million interactions (or 19%) and ideologically nonaligned pages earned over 4.7 million interactions (or 16%).

Fox News, Newsmax, and Breitbart were also among the 5 pages that received the most engagement on posts about immigration. Posts from left-leaning accounts, including historian Heather Cox Richardson and Occupy Democrats, rounded out the top 5.

Half of the 10 immigration-related posts that received the greatest number of interactions were from right-leaning pages, including Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Newsmax, former President Donald Trump, and Franklin Graham. Most of these posts attacked Biden and fearmongered over his immigration policies, with Trump accusing Biden of “aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants” and calling immigrants “Crooked Joe Biden's Illegal Immigrant Criminals.” These posts include:

Networks of Facebook pages affiliated with right-wing media outlets amplified their immigration-related content across the platform, including The Daily Wire, the Western Journal, Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty, Fox News, and The Blaze. These networks accounted for nearly 34% of immigration-related posts from right-leaning pages and nearly 16% of related posts from all news and politics pages. Interactions earned on the immigration-related posts from these networks accounted for 28% of all interactions earned by right-leaning pages and 18% of all interactions earned by all news and politics pages.

The Daily Wire’s network of 10 Facebook pages shared over 3,500 posts about immigration during the studied time period, earning over 1.7 million total interactions. One of the immigration-related posts from the network that earned the greatest number of interactions came from Ben Shapiro and claimed that “the left clearly wants illegal immigrants in the United States.” Pages in The Daily Wire’s network repeatedly shared the outlet’s articles.

Eight Facebook pages run by Fox News shared over 1,200 posts, earning over 2.8 million interactions on right-wing posts about immigration. Some of the immigration-related posts from the network that earned the greatest number of interactions amplified criticism of Biden’s immigration policies.

The Blaze’s network of 9 pages shared more than 2,600 posts, earning over 480,000 interactions. Some of the immigration-related posts from the network that earned the greatest number of interactions promoted Texas’ actions at the border.

These networks of pages also promoted the false claim that noncitizens are voting en masse in elections.

===

:

mma 7 24

During the June 27 CNN presidential election debate between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, Trump made false and misleading claims about immigration and migrants seemingly drawn straight from the right-wing media echo chambers.

Trump falsely claimed that Biden “wants open borders” and “wants our country to … be destroyed,” as migrants are supposedly violent criminals stealing American jobs. He also pushed the “great replacement” theory, saying Biden wants to import migrants to vote Democratic.

Below are some of Trump’s debate claims and recent instances of right-wing media making the same points.

Claim: Migrants are stealing jobs from Americans

In the debate, Trump claimed that migrants “are taking Black jobs and they’re taking Hispanic jobs. And you haven’t seen it yet.” The New York Times, [6/27/24]}:}:}:

:==

judd pop info 4 24

in the 2024 presidential election, one of the central attacks that Trump and his political allies are levying against Biden is that Biden is responsible for a "migrant crime" wave. The argument was summarized by Trump in a March 22 video:

[A] real bloodbath is occurring right now under crooked Joe. It’s Biden’s Border Bloodbath. There’s never been anything like that. Every day, Joe Biden is setting loose thousands of unvetted, unscreened, military-age men into the United States from parts unknown… We had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border probably in the history of the world. Every day innocent citizens are being killed, stabbed, shot, raped, and murdered because of Biden migrant crime. It’s a new word, a new term. It’s migrant crime, but we call it Biden migrant crime cause he’s responsible for it 100%... When I’m your president, we’re going to end this disgrace, and we’re going to stop Biden’s Border Bloodbath. It is a bloodbath indeed, and we’re going to get it stopped.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has launched a website dedicated to the issue, BidenBloodbath.com. "History will remember Biden for his destruction, chaos, and failure. Lives of everyday Americans have been shattered as a direct result of Biden’s open border policies — and he doesn’t care," the RNC claims on the homepage. "We have to stand up and stop Biden before he destroys our nation. The cost of doing nothing is measured in the lives lost to the… crime wave washing across America."

This message has been amplified by the right-wing media. Fox News' Jesse Watters, who hosts the network's top-rated primetime show, offered this commentary on April 12:

Migrant crime is quickly becoming one of the largest issues affecting the American people. Communities all across the United States are being terrorized by violent illegals, while Biden rolls out the red carpet for them with his open border policies, but Donald Trump is pledging to take care of the problem and keep our citizens safe when Republicans get back in power

There are violent crimes committed by undocumented migrants, which are traumatic for the victims, their families, and their communities. That is why the accusation that Biden is responsible for a surge in violent crime by undocumented migrants is so politically potent. There are disturbing anecdotes of crimes that make powerful fodder for attacks during a political campaign. People, understandably, want to feel safe.

But is there evidence that, since Biden took office, there has been a surge in violent crime by undocumented migrants?

The most straightforward answer would be to look at crimes committed by undocumented migrants over time. Unfortunately, this data is unavailable because law enforcement agencies do not typically collect or report information about immigration status, analyst Jeff Asher notes.

In his newsletter, Jeff-alytics, Asher came up with the next best alternative. He looked at trends for "violent crime across the 14 counties along the Texas border with Mexico." If there is, in fact, a violent crime wave fueled by migrants, it would show up in these counties before anywhere else. The Texas Department of Public Safety maintains up-to-date, reliable crime data at the county level.

Asher found "no evidence of increasing violent crime along the US border with Mexico." In fact, these border counties "have seen a relatively steady violent crime rate below that of the rest of their state and the nation as a whole."

The same trends hold when you look at murder alone. The murder rate in border counties is consistently lower than the country as a whole, with little change over the last four years.

In other words, the best available data does not support the claim that Republicans have made a central issue in the 2024 campaign. There is no "bloodbath" at the border. These areas, in fact, have less crime than the nation as a whole.

The national crime decline

If there is no migrant crime wave at the border, perhaps it will show up in other areas of the country. The data does not support that claim either.

Nationwide, homicide and violent crime dramatically declined in 2023. According to the latest FBI’s Quarterly Uniform Crime report, which was released in March, homicides were down 13% in 2023 compared to 2022. Meanwhile, violent crime and property crime dipped 6% and 4% respectively. This data is preliminary and based on reports submitted by 15,199 of 19,152 law enforcement agencies across the country, reflecting “about 82% of the U.S. population.” (The FBI will release a more complete analysis for 2023 in the fall.)

Based on initial findings, Asher said “[t]he decline in murder in 2023 is likely the largest one year decline ever recorded.” The last time that happened was in 1996 when murder dropped 9.1%. In 163 of the 232 cities that submitted data, murder “was down or even,” Asher wrote. These findings were also mirrored in a survey by the Council on Criminal Justice, “which found that homicides were down an average of 10%” across 32 cities. The preliminary data also “suggests 2023 likely had the lowest reported violent crime rate nationally since the late 1960s,” Asher said. A few cities, including Chicago and DC, bucked the trend and saw an increase in violent crime in 2023. But there is no evidence this increase was attributable to migrants.

Asher said early data from 2024 shows that “murder is down around 20 percent in 2024 in more than 180 cities” compared to the same time period last year. In some cities, like DC, Las Vegas, and New Orleans, murder has declined by “more than 30 percent.” In Chicago, murder has declined 12%. But Asher concluded that the data, though incomplete, is encouraging overall. “A murder decline of even half the magnitude suggested by the early 2024 data would place the US murder rate this year largely on par with or below where it was from 2015 to 2019,” Asher noted.

The fact that we are not seeing evidence of a migrant crime surge is consistent with historical data that shows migrants, even undocumented migrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. A peer-reviewed 2020 study, which used data from the Texas Department of Public Safety from 2012 to 2018, "found a lower felony arrest rate for immigrants in the U.S. illegally compared to legal immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens and no evidence of increasing criminality among immigrants." An upcoming study by a researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute similarly found that "undocumented migrants in Texas were about 26% less likely to be convicted of homicide than native-born Americans over the decade of 2013-22."

It appears, however, that Republican messaging around the issue is having an impact. Despite the data, most people believe crime is up. A Gallup poll in November 2023 found that 77% of Americans “believe there is more crime in the U.S. than a year ago.”

===

Fox News' attempt to manufacture a Biden crime crisis runs into a problem: Violent crime is down | Media Matters for America

'There’s no evidence': Experts debunk Trump’s claims of 'migrant crime' wave in US cities - Alternet.org

===

DEW space lasers

https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/conspiracy-theories-about-record-breaking-texas-wildfire-spread-online-after-biden-visited

bonus deny climate

recall tx drought some yrs back was prayer

oregon was antifa

mma 3 24

Conspiracy theorists and right-wing influencers are attributing unprecedented wildfires in Texas to a government attack using so-called directed energy weapons (DEWs), while others say the fires were an act of “retaliation” from the federal government motivated by an ongoing stand-off over migration at the state’s southern border. Dozens of videos and posts falsely insist that the claim is backed up by remarks President Joe Biden made during his February 29 visit to Brownsville, Texas.

While discussing how “up-to-date standards and building codes” could help reduce property damage from wildfires, Biden said, “If you fly over these areas that are burnt to the ground, and you see in the midst of 20 homes that are just totally destroyed, one home is sitting because it has the right roof on it.”

Claims that Biden was somehow suggesting that certain roofs are immune to the impacts of DEWs while other structures were intentionally targeted in the fires are proliferating on X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, along with related conspiracy theories suggesting the fires were payback for the state defying federal border policy.

In 2024, climate change is already fueling extreme weather all around the country — including the Texas fires}:

A conspiracy theory about blue objects being immune to so-called government weapons has been brewing since the Lahaina fires}:

X and TikTok users claim Biden’s roof comment is evidence of foul play}:

Video Player

Other online content creators speculate that the wildfires are “retaliation” for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s dispute with the administration’s border policies}:

On social media, some conspiracy theorists and right-wing influencers alleged that the government started the fires deliberately to punish Texas for not complying with the Supreme Court ruling, or suggested that migrants were somehow involved in starting the Smokehouse Creek Fire.

[twt]

---

---

//?

an 2 24

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) isn't happy with House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-Louisiana) promise to kill immigration legislation that the US Senate is working to pass.

According to reporter Emily Brooks of the Hill, Crenshaw railed against his Republican colleagues on Thursday for refusing to even consider any legislation to address the flow of migrants at the Southern border. Brooks tweeted that Crenshaw — while not naming names — specifically addressed his comments to "the right" in airing his frustrations.

"I'm extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill. That's what we all ran on doing," Crenshaw said. "If we have a bill that decreases illegal immigration — and that's an if, right? … But if we have a bill that on net significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do."

READ MORE:'Appetite for payback': How Kevin McCarthy and allies plan to 'make life miserable' for 'the Gaetz Eight'

The US Senate is currently close to finalizing legislation aimed at providing additional funding for border security, as well as new authorities for the executive branch allowing for a temporary shutdown of the border if crossings number more than 5,000 in a given week. President Joe Biden has insisted he's done all he can to stem the flow of migrants without additional powers over the border that would have to be granted by an act of Congress.

:{Sens. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona) have been leading the bipartisan negotiations since late last year, and the Democratic-controlled US Senate is poised to pass a legislative package that would include many items on the Republican wish list.

Included in the proposed framework is language that would allow for the automatic expulsion of asylum seekers and shortening the time for asylum to be considered to just six months (where it used to take up to 10 years). The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) has criticized the framework as potentially committing "refoulement," which pertains to international law aimed at preventing governments from knowingly sending people fleeing danger back to their home countries.}:

"Refoulement was frequent during the Title 42 era. In addition to exposing some asylum seekers to the same perils they were originally fleeing, border expulsions placed them in new danger," WOLA wrote. "Despite the difficulty of monitoring during the pandemic, Human Rights First and border-zone partners tracked 13,480 attacks—killings, rapes, kidnappings, assaults, robberies—against people expelled into dangerous Mexican border cities."

Despite the conservative nature of the bill, former President Donald Trump has been reportedly lobbying Republicans to not support the legislation, hoping to prevent Biden from notching a win on a key campaign issue for Trump.

READ MORE:Here are the details of the new bipartisan border security bill Trump doesn't want passed

---

INVASION HIST

mma 1 24

The bogus premise that migrants entering the United States in search of a better life are conducting an “invasion” of the country has moved from the fringes of the right-wing media to its core over the past decade. The idea of an imminent threat to personal safety and national identity posed by columns of faceless brown masses marching on the border is now a fixture of right-wing commentary, from the depths of the online fever swamps to the talk-radio world of Rush Limbaugh to the heights of Fox News. And this incendiary talking point is now the pretext for a looming constitutional crisis.

Texas and the U.S. government are in a standoff over whether the state’s government can defy orders from federal officials by constructing and maintaining razor-wire barriers along the border with Mexico to prevent migrants from crossing into the country. On January 22, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an appeals court order which had barred the U.S. Border Patrol from taking down the barriers at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, near the Rio Grande — but Texas officials are still preventing federal agents from entering the area.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote in a January 24 statement that due to President Joe Biden’s “lawless border policies,” Abbott had “declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself,” and that state officials would continue “acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”

Legal experts have skewered Abbott’s contention that his state is suffering an “invasion” and that that overrules the federal government’s constitutional supremacy over immigration policy and the maintenance of national borders. They note that mentions of “invasion” in the Constitution refer not to metaphorical examples like migration but to literal armed incursions by hostile foreign powers.

“The claim that a large increase in the number of would-be migrants gaining entry at the southern border constitutes an ‘invasion’ under Article IV is constitutional nonsense,” University of Missouri law professor Frank O. Bowman III wrote for Just Security. “It cannot be sustained by any reasonable reading of the text of the Constitution, the original understanding of the Constitution, or subsequent interpretations of the Constitution by courts or constitutional scholars.”

Indeed, three different federal appeals courts summarily rejected the idea in the 1990s, as Immigration Council’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted.

IFrame Content

But constitutional arguments be damned, the right wants to increase the salience of a chaotic border (while preventing both bipartisan legislation that would provide more money for border security and increases in legal immigration) because they think that will help Donald Trump win the presidency. Every Republican governor but one and numerous Republican members of Congress are supporting Abbott’s effort, as are the full constellation of right-wing commentators (some of whom are hyping a potential civil war).

It’s impossible to disaggregate the Republican Party’s full-throated adoption of the bogus “invasion” analogy as a constitutional argument from the right-wing media’s use of that rhetoric.

Language once limited to far-right figures like Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Steve King, and the Minuteman militia has become commonplace among the movement’s demagogues. Right-wing stars like Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson, who strive to terrify their audiences with the prospect of dangerous immigrants, popularized the “invasion” framing in order to gin up support for the GOP and its ethnonationalist wing and to make space for extraordinary measures at the border. Republican Party leaders, up to and including Trump, have followed in their wake. And along the way, armed white nationalists spouting the same talking point conducted a series of massacres, with targets ranging from an El Paso Walmart to a Pittsburgh synagogue.

IFrame Content

Here’s the history, ripped from the Media Matters archives.

2005 — 2012: Pat Buchanan and the “Reconquista”

There is a long American tradition of right-wing bigots warning that immigrants would contaminate and ultimately destroy the country. But President George W. Bush’s ultimately unsuccessful effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation during his second term brought the issue to the fore this century and exacerbated a schism between the right’s pro-business, pro-immigration reform wing and its nationalist, immigration-restrictionist wing.

Right-wing restrictionists used the increasing migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border during that period, an overwhelming majority of which involved Mexican citizens, to claim that the United States was suffering an “invasion” by that country.

“This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history,” Buchanan wrote in his 2006 book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. “We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.”

Buchanan and his allies, like Michelle Malkin, argued that the migrant influx was part of the “Reconquista,” a purported plot by Mexico’s government and Hispanic politicians in the U.S. to reclaim the American Southwest. “Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war,” Buchanan explained. He argued that the “invasion” would cause a “balkanization of America” in which the Southwest “de facto is going to secede from this country.”

The “Reconquista” theory fell out of fashion in subsequent years, as migrants with Mexican citizenship fell from 85% of all border apprehensions to 20%. But even without the involvement of a purportedly hostile foreign nation, “invasion” rhetoric recurred on the right’s fringes whenever the immigration issue returned to the fore — and ultimately spread into its mainstream.

2013 — 2016: Laura Ingraham’s “invasion” talk helps take down Cantor, Breitbart’s lifts up Trump

Immigration reform once more seemed within reach during President Barack Obama’s second term. The U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan bill in 2013 that would have increased border enforcement, expanded legal immigration, and provided a path to citizenship for unauthorized migrants. With Obama promising to sign the bill, the remaining holdup was the Republican-controlled House — and right-wing immigration restrictionists like Laura Ingraham, then a prominent radio host and Fox contributor, demanding that the GOP legislators oppose reform.

But the first months of 2014 saw a near-doubling of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border over the previous year, which experts attributed to a rise in gang violence in Central America. Obama’s June declaration that the surge constituted an “urgent humanitarian situation” requiring the provision of food, housing, and medical treatment for the children triggered a firestorm on the right — complete with claims that the kids constituted an “invasion.”

“The Obama administration has basically put out the welcome mat at the border: ‘Come on in, we'll feed you, we'll house you, we’ll clothe you, we'll get you medical care,’” Ingraham said in a Fox & Friends appearance. “This is an ongoing invasion into our country, and it is horrifying for our sovereignty and our rule of law.”

Ingraham also blamed Republican Eric Cantor, then the House majority leader and a congressman from Virginia who supported citizenship for young people brought to the U.S. as children, if not necessarily broader immigration reform, for aiding what she described as “an invasion facilitated by our own government.” And she did more than complain about him — she endorsed and campaigned for Cantor’s primary opponent, Dave Brat.

Brat won that June 10 election in a victory widely credited to the anti-immigrant rabble-rousing of demagogues like Ingraham. Cantor’s defeat sent a seismic shock through the GOP, and by the end of the month, House Speaker John Boehner informed Obama that immigration reform would not receive a vote that year. The increasingly powerful right-wing media had exercised its veto over the Republican agenda.

Soon after, immigrant “invasion” rhetoric began gaining traction on right-wing Facebook pages, Media Matters found. Breitbart.com, the far-right website controlled at the time by Trumpist Steve Bannon, sought to capture that fringe-right grassroots energy — and snag market share from Fox — with virulent anti-immigration content. By 2015, the site “became the center of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem,” Harvard researchers reported in a post-mortem on election coverage that cycle.

The right-wing media’s incessant fearmongering over the border eliminated any space within the party for reformers. The ultimate beneficiary was Trump, who launched his presidential campaign claiming that Mexico was sending “rapists” to the U.S. and promised to build a wall and make that country pay for it as his supporters touted his ability to turn back the purported “invasion.”

2017 — 2020: The migrant caravan and the mainstreaming of “the great replacement”

Trump’s ascension to the presidency put his party in control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and left him ultimately responsible for the border. But as the 2018 midterm elections approached, Trump adopted Fox’s preferred campaign strategy by focusing attention on a caravan of migrants 1,000 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico, an “invasion” he falsely blamed on Democrats.

IFrame Content

The Fox-fueled president’s fevered statements attracted crisis-level coverage from national broadcast shows, cable news networks, and newspapers, though the attention ultimately failed to prevent Democrats from gaining control of Congress.

Trump’s caravan push coincided with a major increase in Fox references to migrants as an “invasion” or “invaders,” a trend that continued even after the GOP’s November defeat, Media Matters found. “Prime-time Fox News hosts and guests used the words to refer to migrants 33 times in the 30 days ahead of the election, up from 25 times in all of 2015, 2016 and 2017,” we reported. “Fox has kept up the attacks in the weeks after the Republicans lost the U.S. House: Prime-time hosts and guests used the terms 48 times between Election Day and the end of November.” A follow-up review found more than 70 Fox references to a migrant “invasion” in the first seven months of 2019.

IFrame Content

As Democrats took power in Congress, Fox commentators began pushing something even darker alongside their constant invocations of a migrant “invasion.” Influential figures like Ingraham and fellow Fox host Tucker Carlson adopted the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, a white supremacist talking point which posits that Democrats are deliberately importing brown migrants to “replace” white Americans in order to corrupt the country and increase their own power.

The “great replacement” rhetoric moved from internet fever swamps to the prime-time hours of the nation’s most-watched cable news network — and to the manifestos of white nationalist spree killers bent on stopping the “invaders.”

2021 — 2024: Forever war

The right’s anti-immigrant rhetoric has been more incendiary than ever since Biden took office in 2021. Border apprehensions and expulsions have increased to record levels as migrants flee political and economic instability in Central and South America for the booming post-COVID U.S., and hundreds of thousands have made asylum claims to authorities at the border.

But for the right, “Biden’s border crisis” is a deliberate effort by a president who does not want to stop the invasion.

IFrame Content

Every possible news event, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the end of Title 42 deportation authority to the upcoming presidential election, brings a new wave of fearmongering over the “invaders” who will “replace” the population. They’re using this rhetoric to argue for extreme measures on the border and to denounce Biden for not pursuing them. As Carlson claimed, “Our military could seal the border with Mexico in days. That would save American lives, it would restore order, and it would end the invasion.”

Texas, with its long border with Mexico and numerous Republican politicians eager for the right-wing media’s spotlight and support, is a natural subject for this coverage. Indeed, over a three-day period in July 2022, Media Matters found that Fox aired at least 20 claims that the state was being invaded by migrants. That period overlapped with a push by county officials to get Abbott to declare an “invasion” under the Constitution in order to seize control of border policy from the federal government.

At the time, legal experts pointed out that the effort was ridiculous and based on “a total mischaracterization of what an invasion is.” But the GOP’s propaganda wing currently wields more influence over the party’s legal policy than its legal experts, and 20 months later, Texas is in a standoff with the federal government based on its “invasion” talking point.

---

---

lankford censured just for talking to dems

Here are the details of the new bipartisan border security bill Trump doesn’t want passed - Alternet.org

---

judd 1 31 24

Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) is publicly urging Texas to ignore the Supreme Court. In previously unreported comments, Roy explained that he feared his position would push the country into "a post-constitutional world." But, Roy said, the Supreme Court is "pushing our hand" by issuing a ruling related to the southern border that he opposes, and the Supreme Court needs to "feel the pressure."

Major law firms and numerous prominent corporations are financially backing Roy's reelection campaign, according to a Popular Information analysis of federal campaign finance filings.

Roy's ire stems from litigation initiated by Texas regarding Shelby Park, a municipal park in Eagle Pass, Texas, that abuts the Rio Grande River. Texas has seized control of the park, enclosing the entire 47 acres in razor wire and denying entry to the U.S. Border Patrol. Access to Shelby Park is important to federal authorities because it is used as a "staging area for policing and interdiction operations along the Rio Grande." According to the federal government, the razor wire puts federal personnel and migrants in danger. Texas sued to prevent the federal government from removing the wire.

Texas won a temporary injunction from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, which prohibited the federal government from disturbing the razor wire. But on January 22, in a brief order, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and lifted the injunction.

In response, Roy posted that the Supreme Court's decision was "unconscionable" and that Texas "should ignore it."

[twt]

The next day, Roy told Fox News that Texas should "tell the court to go to hell."

On January 24, in a little-noticed interview with right-wing conspiracy theorist Charlie Kirk, Roy expanded on his thinking. Roy explained his position pushes the country to a "post-constitutional world." But Roy said he was willing to take that risk because he believed the threat of a Constitutional crisis would pressure the Supreme Court to issue more favorable rulings in the future.

I say this respectfully. I say it with the fear of what I’m saying. I do not want to live in a post-constitutional world, but this Court is pushing our hand, and the Court needs to know that… I want them to feel the pressure, because if they’re political animals, they need to know it. We were out there defending Amy Coney Barrett when her house was being protested, we said that the law should be enforced to protect her. Where is she when the people of Texas need to be protected? Totally M.I.A.

Roy also said that his "first duty" as Congressman was not to comply with the Constitution, which establishes the Supreme Court as the ultimate legal authority. Rather, Roy believes he should take whatever actions are necessary, in his own mind, to "make sure our people are protected and secure and safe."

I want to preserve and protect the Republican form of government that our country is built upon, and I want a strong America standing in front of the American flag. But my first duty as an elected official is, yes to the Constitution, but my first duty is to make sure that I’m protecting and following my job to make sure our people are protected and secure and safe. That’s what leaders of a state, of a sovereign entity, have to be concerned about, and so, that’s what we’re up against.

In other words, Roy believes his own opinion about what is required to keep people "secure and safe" trumps the Constitution. This is a radical view that would upend the nation's legal system.

:{:{Roy's 2024 reelection campaign is supported by two prominent law firms. Covington & Burling is an international law firm based in Washington, DC. It has more than 60 lawyers who work in its Appellate and Supreme Court group, including 18 former Supreme Court clerks. The firm says its Supreme Court practice is known for its "glowing reputation." And yet, the firm's PAC donated $5,000 on April 24, 2023, to support the reelection of Roy, who believes that Supreme Court rulings can be ignored.}:

Roy also received $750 on May 17, 2023, from the PAC of another prestigious DC-based law firm, Akin Gump, which maintains an appellate group that "regularly represent[s] parties and amici in the U.S. Supreme Court." Covington & Burling and Akin Gump did not respond to requests for comment.}:

Since 2023, Roy has also received financial support from the PACs of major corporations and professional organizations, including Valero Energy ($2,500), Union Pacific ($2,000), iHeartMedia ($2,000), Toyota ($1,000), Dell ($1,000), and the National Association of Realtors ($1,000). Roy's corporate donors did not respond to requests for comment.

The other Republicans thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court

Meanwhile, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) has suggested that states can overrule the Supreme Court if it “gets something wrong.” In a CNN appearance on January 26, the Republican Governor argued that because “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land” then “the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington, DC telling us [what to do], you know.” In other words, states can defy the Supreme Court if they have a different interpretation of the Constitution. Stitt also insinuated that state authority can override the federal government: “The states have a right to defend themselves. The states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states."

When asked by a NewsMax host if he thought the dispute could evolve into a “force-on-force conflict,” Stitt refused to directly answer the question. Instead, he replied that the border conflict is a “powder keg worth of tension.” The governor also claimed during the interview that if President Joe Biden were to federalize the National Guard troops, they “would be in a difficult situation to protect their homeland or follow what Biden’s saying.” In an interview with Kirk, Stitt said that such a move by the Biden administration would put National Guard members “in a tough situation trying to obey what they know is a very foolish policy.” The conflict, Stitt told Kirk, “is ready to go off.”

Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) has also made similar remarks. “[T]he feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground,” the lawmaker said when asked for his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s ruling. According to the Texas Tribune, Higgins' post “was shared and celebrated widely in far-right online communities, including those that were integral to the planning of ‘stop the steal’ protests in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot.”

According to campaign finance filings, both politicians have been bankrolled by some of the most prominent companies. Since 2022, corporate donors to Stitt include Deloitte ($8,500), BNSF Railway ($7,500), AT&T ($5,000), Marathon Petroleum ($5,000), NextEra Energy ($5,000), Boeing ($5,000), Tyson Foods ($5,000), Union Pacific ($5,000), and UnitedHealth Group ($5,000).

Meanwhile, Higgins has received contributions from the following companies since 2022: Phillips 66 ($7,500), Entergy ($4,500), Chevron ($2,500), and Boeing ($1,000).

None of these companies responded to Popular Information’s requests for comment.

---

---

an 1 24

The U.S./Mexico border crisis has been a source of major tension between the Biden Administration and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. President Joe Biden, on Friday, January 26, declared that he will "shut down" the United States' southern border if necessary.

In an article published by The Nation on January 30, progressive legal expert Elie Mystal is vehemently critical of Abbott's handling of the border crisis in Texas — even comparing his actions to a "Civil War reenactment."

"The flash point for this crisis is, of course, the border,' Mystal explains. "I have written before about Eagle Pass, Tex., as a place along the Rio Grande where it is popular for immigrants to make the crossing. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has erected a series of sadistic obstructions across this part of the river — including buoys ringed with razor wire and underwater traps — meant to maim and even drown people trying to swim across the river. Should people, and their children, survive Abbott's gauntlet, Texas officials on the other side have been accused of pushing them back into the river, or denying the survivors medical aid or even water."

Mystal warns that tensions between Abbott and the Biden Administration go way beyond a "constitutional crisis."

"People will say Texas is merely 'causing a constitutional crisis' as opposed to spoiling for civil war," Mystal argues. "But that is the wrong frame. There is no 'constitutional' crisis here, because there is nothing up for reasonable interpretation."

The legal expert continues, "Texas is violating the Constitution, as well as a court order, and it's doing so in order to continue to hurt desperate people.… This is not a legal crisis: This is a rebellion against federal authority and the basic human decency that it's trying to provide…. If Gov. Abbott tries to further obstruct the operations of the federal government and continues to violate the Supreme Court's order, he should be arrested for treason."

READ MORE:Trump calls on 'all willing states' to blatantly defy SCOTUS border ruling in Texas

---

BS note groomer pedo coming for your kids

an 1 24

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) served up wild accusations against President Joe Biden and his administration on Monday during a House Republicans’ press conference on the border. After making demands of the Biden Administration to send an ultra-conservative bill that includes funding and stringent policies for the U.S. border, and funding to support fighting in Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, Republicans are now rejecting what they requested after decrees from Donald Trump.

Back in October, after far-right House Republicans ousted Kevin McCarthy and were struggling to find a new Speaker, President Joe Biden requested a $105 billion aid package for the U.S. southern border, Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Of the $105 billion, $50 billion would go to U.S. defense industry manufacturers to “expand production lines, strengthen the American economy, keep us safe, and create new American jobs,” Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young said, CNBC reported at the time.

“Additionally,” CNBC explained, “the White House is seeking $6.4 billion for border operations, pushing back against Republicans who have criticized it for not doing enough to contend with migration from Latin America. The request also includes about $1.2 billion for efforts aimed at countering fentanyl, which has driven a wave of deadly overdoses in the United States.”

“Some in Congress have said a lot about doing something on border security while refusing to take up the $4 billion request we sent in August to Congress,” Young said. “We will not be lectured by those who refuse to act. As we’ve said repeatedly, Congress needs to take action to provide sufficient resources for the border.”

READ MORE: Tuberville Delivers Startling Military Analysis: ‘I Don’t Know Who’s Running Our Country’

Three months later, House Republicans under direction of Donald Trump have decided to reject any legislation that is not “perfect.” Just as he did when he launched his xenophobic presidential campaign in 2015, and throughout his 2016 campaign, Trump aims to use immigration as a wedge issue to win the White House in November.

But now, Trump has the support and influence of the Republican Party, and many – especially House Republicans – willing to obey him via often-angry rants he posts on his Truth Social platform.

Congresswoman Van Duyne, a Texas backbencher who failed at her attempt to be elevated into House leadership when Mike Johnson was made Speaker, on Monday in a little-noticed speech served up allegations of “traitorous acts,” “usher[ing] in a new era of slave trade,” and promoting the “endless rapes” of women and children and a “lifetime of sex trafficking enslavement,” against President Biden and his administration.

“Joe Biden and the extremists in his administration are arsonists,” Congresswoman Van Duyne declared. “From day one they have burned down every shred of strong, effective, Trump-era border security policy that was protecting America.”

“Their purposeful and persistent actions, the arsonists of the Biden administration have created a national security and humanitarian nightmare. By turning over control of our southern border to the Mexican cartels, Biden, the Democrats, have ushered in a new massive era of slave trade here in America that is cursing the lives of illegal immigrant women, little girls and little boys. But Biden, [DHS Secretary] Mayorkas, and the Democrats couldn’t care less about the lives of these small children. They’re condemning them to endless rapes in a lifetime of sex trafficking enslavement.”

READ MORE: Local Reporter Hammers House Republican Taking Credit for Biden’s Bills After Voting ‘No’

“And rather than using the power that they already have in existing law, to this end is utter catastrophe,” she continued. “Biden is salivating at the prospect of some staggeringly horrible Senate compromise bill to enshrine that this ongoing disaster continues.”

The Senate bill was drafted by hard-core conservative U.S. Senator Jim Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, and it is far more extreme than Democrats would ordinarily support, yet has the approval of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I’ve got news for the Senate: You don’t reward arsonists by handing them gasoline. Instead, you do what Texas is doing: you dig in, you fight, you hold the line and you never give in when our national security is constantly being threatened by the traitorous actions of the executive branch. Stand with Texas. Hold the line and never back down.”

Watch Van Duyne’s remarks below or at this link.

---

1 24 judd ymail

*The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization… Under the Constitution, the states are granted no such powers." — Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n (1948)

For decades, the Supreme Court has been clear that the federal government, not the states, has the power to regulate immigration. Since 2021, however, Texas has been spending billions annually to impose its own vision of immigration policy — an effort known as "Operation Lone Star." Using members of the Texas National Guard and Texas Department of Public Safety, "Operation Lone Star personnel work around-the-clock to detect and repel illegal crossings." Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has pledged to "hold the line" at the southern border due to alleged inaction by the Biden administration.

Over the years, Operation Lone Star has become increasingly aggressive. In 2024, it has brought the country to the precipice of a Constitutional crisis.

:{:{The epicenter of the confrontation between Texas and the federal government is Shelby Park, a municipal park in Eagle Pass, Texas, that abuts the Rio Grande River. In this map of the area, submitted by the federal government in a legal filing, the area of the park is defined by the yellow line and the river:}:

pix]

Texas has seized control of Shelby Park, enclosing the entire 47 acres in razor wire and denying entry to the U.S. Border Patrol.

*Texas National Guard soldiers wait nearby the boat ramp where law enforcement enter the Rio Grande at Shelby Park on January 27, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas.

Access to Shelby Park is important to federal authorities because it is used as a "staging area for policing and interdiction operations along the Rio Grande." This includes the use of a boat ramp in the park to access the Rio Grande.

Texas' seizure of Shelby Park and refusal to allow federal officials access have created an extremely dangerous situation. On January 12, three migrants — a woman and two children — drowned in the Rio Grande near the park. When Border Patrol agents went to Shelby Park to address the situation and help other migrants in distress, guardsmen from the Texas National Guard refused to let them enter, saying "they had been ordered not to allow Border Patrol access to the park."

The legal battle between Texas and the federal government over Shelby Park began when Texas sued the federal government for cutting and removing some of the razor wire it installed along the Rio Grande. Border Patrol argued that the razor wire was putting its agents and migrants legally entitled to claim asylum at risk. Texas argued that the federal government was illegally destroying its property. The state eventually won an injunction from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, prohibiting the federal government from disturbing Texas' razor wire. The federal government, however, appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 22, in a brief order, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and lifted the injunction.

Texas' response to the Supreme Court order has been alarming. Abbott issued a statement stating that "[t]he federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States." Compact theory was championed by John C. Calhoun, one of the staunchest defenders of slavery. It essentially views states as "independent sovereigns" that are free to reject federal authority. It was used to justify the "nullification" of federal laws and, ultimately, secession from the union by Southern states.

As law professor Steven Vladeck notes, the specific constitutional argument Abbott is advancing makes even less sense. This is the key excerpt from Abbott's letter:

I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

Abbott is claiming that he can simply declare an "invasion" and grant himself authority that "supersedes any federal statutes." This is legal hogwash.

Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution declares that "no State shall, without the Consent of Congress… engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." In this case, Texas is not being invaded. Migrants, many of whom have legitimate claims of asylum, presenting themselves at the border is not an invasion. Illegal border crossings are something that occurs under every administration and does not constitute an invasion. Further, Abbott is not responding by engaging in "war." He has not invaded Mexico. He has put up some razor wire. But his actions are, according to Vladeck, "antithetical to the constitutional structure of our federal system," which establishes the supremacy of federal law.

Notably, Texas is not yet defying the Supreme Court's January 22 order. That order simply lifted the Fifth Circuit injunction preventing the federal government from removing the razor wire installed by Texas in Shelby Park. The Supreme Court hasn't yet ordered Texas to do anything.

But Texas is continuing to interfere with the federal government's access to Shelby Park, in clear violation of the Constitution and federal law. On January 23, the Department of Homeland Security wrote a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), demanding "the ability to access the border in the Shelby Park area that is currently obstructed by Texas." In a January 26 response, Paxton rejected the Department of Homeland Security's request and informed the federal government that Texas will continue "to protect its southern border against every effort by the Biden Administration to undermine the State’s constitutional right of self-defense."

The conflict that Texas is creating with the federal government will almost certainly end up back at the Supreme Court. And Texas is inviting a constitutional crisis by signaling that it is prepared to ignore the Supreme Court if it does not get its way.

The new confederacy

The radical and dangerous legal theories being advanced by Texas previously provoked a Civil War and have been broadly rejected for more than a century. So, one might expect Texas to get little support from other states. That is not the case.

On January 25, the Republican Governors Association released a letter — signed by 25 Republican governors — "supporting Texas' constitutional right to self-defense." The governors write that they "stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border." They also explicitly endorsed compact theory, which was used to justify secession. "The authors of the U.S. Constitution made clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution," the governors write. "Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation." The letter was signed by every Republican governor except Phil Scott (R-VT).

Former President Donald Trump is also supporting Abbott. Trump called on "all willing States to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of Illegals."

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), and numerous members of Congress have also aligned themselves with Abbott. Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) said Texas should tell the Supreme Court to "go to hell." Roy was so proud of this remark, he made a special graphic for his social media accounts.

Inviting chaos

Claiming that Texas has a duty to ignore the authority of the federal government unsurprisingly attracts dangerous extremists. "A trucker convoy of 'patriots' is heading to the U.S. border with Mexico next week," Vice reports. The group, which has dubbed itself "God's Army," believes they are "on a mission to stand up against the 'globalists' who they claim are conspiring to keep U.S. borders open and destroy the country."

A fundraising effort for the group has already raised more than $113,000. "Once willing to die defending this country, now willing to die protecting my family from what this country has become," one anonymous donor wrote. The convoy is being heavily promoted by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. “There’s a war literally happening now for America,” Jones said.

The convoy is expected to reach Eagle Pass on February 3.

---

---

BlazeTV host Steve Deace: "The Supreme Court has told Texas your choices are be invaded or secede" | Media Matters for America

spate of civil was BS 1 24 texas abbott razor wire

Right-wing media escalate civil war rhetoric after Supreme Court rules against Texas in razor wire case | Media Matters for America

---

Amid an ongoing right-wing media panic about a supposed “invasion” of migrants coming across the southern border, a group of right-wing extremists — including members with ties to QAnon, the election denial movement, and anti-vaccine propagandists — have organized a convoy and series of rallies along the southern border. The “Take Our Border Back Southern Border Convoy” has been amplified and celebrated by right-wing media and political figures as posts promoting it have spread across social media.

CitationFrom the January 25, 2024, edition of One America News' In Focus

:{:{Video}:

CitationFrom the January 25, 2024, edition of Fox Business' The Evening Edit

LIZ MACDONALD (HOST): We have a new, this new news coming in. A trucker convoy is kicking off heading to the border states — we're hearing February 3 — for a multistate rally at the border in Texas, Arizona, and California. And they're calling on active and retired law enforcement, military veterans, elected officials, small business owners, ranchers to join them to rally in protest of what's going on at the border. What do you make of this? More Americans are stepping up.

REP. BETH VAN DUYNE (R-TX): Hey, don’t forget the mama bears that they’re also asking to go down there, who are seeing what’s happening in schools, where their kids are getting kicked out because they’re having illegal immigrants stay in classrooms.

Yeah, I say bring those beautiful, huge semis, those 18-wheeler bad boys down here to protect our border. They need to understand that this is not simply — you know, they can't sweep this under the rug. People are opening their eyes to it, and I hope it is a fantastic convoy, and I hope it does, you know, shed more light on it, and you're seeing people from around the country. I mean, they're even talking about having folks from Canada now come down because they see the damage that is being caused. So yeah, bring those bad boys down to our coast.

---

an 1 24

a group of seventeen senators led by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), among them some of the most hardline, far-right Republicans, have joined together in calling for a special conference meeting on Ukraine funding ahead of a vote that could come as soon as next week.

The move comes as Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is aligning with Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and, effectively, President Joe Biden, in calling for House and Senate Republicans to accept a border deal crafted by U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-OK).

House Republicans have tied any funding support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to HR2 a bill that has little to no chance of passing in the Senate. It is opposed by immigration advocates, the Biden White House, Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans, and other groups including Catholic Bishops.

Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman was first to report the demand for the meeting, posting the letter (below) signed by Republican U.S. Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Rick Scott, Mike Braun, John Cornyn, Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Roger Marshall, Eric Schmitt, Tommy Tuberville, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, Marco Rubio, James Risch, J.D. Vance, and Ted Budd.

The letter calls for the special conference meeting on Ukraine funding to come next week. Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio reports that meeting will take place next Wednesday, according to Punchbowl’s Andrew Desiderio.

READ MORE: ‘Staggering Refusal to Govern’: Johnson Sparks Outcry for Tying Any Border Fix to a Trump Win

Pointing to that letter, Desiderio writes, “Of note — not all of these signatories are opposed to Ukraine funding. But most of them are.”

The letter also came while the top four House and Senate leaders were meeting with President Joe Biden. The Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, quickly announced at the end of that meeting that nothing has changed.

“Johnson’s remarks show a continued hardline position on tying Ukraine funding to border restrictions,” Politico reports. “He also said he was not wedded strictly to the name of any bill being attached, a nod to the fact that many House Republicans want the deal to closely mimic the conservative border bill H.R. 2, but said the elements in any deal ‘have to be meaningful.'”

See the letter below or at this link.

===

---

Right-wing media ignore GOP stonewalling in order to blame Biden and Democrats for lack of action on the border | Media Matters for America

---

an 1 24

house Republicans, who will have a tiny two-vote margin in less than three weeks, are still on their winter break despite two impending budget crises that could lead to government shutdowns as soon as January 19. Speaker Mike Johnson allowed the House to go into recess on December 14, ignoring urging from the White House and the Senate for aid packages for Ukraine and Israel. Members are not expected to return until next week.

But dozens of House Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, are headed to Texas Wednesday, betting their focus on the southern border will help them win the November elections. They’re kicking off the year by trying to do something Congress hasn’t done in almost 150 years: impeach a presidential cabinet secretary.

Republicans have been gunning for the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, since President Joe Biden nominated him three years ago. Born in Havana to Cuban Jewish parents, including a mother whose family fled the Holocaust, Mayorkas is the first Latino, the first immigrant, and the first Cuban American to lead DHS. He was confirmed despite tremendous pushback by Senate Republicans in a 56-43 vote on February 2, 2021, after U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) took the rare step of putting a hold on his nomination.

RELATED: ‘Despicable’: Mayorkas Decimates Hawley

Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-TN) announced Tuesday the House will begin impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mayorkas next week, Punchbowl News was first to report, calling it “a major escalation in Green’s nearly year-long probe into Mayorkas.”

The last time Congress impeached a cabinet secretary was in 1876, when they impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Worth Belknap. He was not convicted by the Senate.

“Our investigation made clear that this crisis finds its foundation in Secretary Mayorkas’ decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” Green told Punchbowl News in a statement. “The bipartisan House vote in November to refer articles of impeachment to my Committee only served to highlight the importance of our taking up the impeachment process – which is what we will begin doing next Wednesday.”

Punchbowl News reports “the migrant crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border has arguably been House Republicans’ biggest rallying cry heading into a critical election year. The issue is widely seen as a huge political problem for Democrats and Biden. The president’s poll numbers on this issue are terrible.”

READ MORE: ‘Have to Assume’: GOP Senator Again Claims Without Proof Iranian ‘Sleeper Cells’ May Be in US

The White House is pushing back against Republicans’ framing of the issue at the southern border.

“Actions speak louder than words,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement, Politico reports. “House Republicans’ anti-border security record is defined by attempting to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel, opposing President Biden’s record-breaking border security funding, and refusing to take up the President’s supplemental funding request.”

“After voting in 2023 to eliminate over 2,000 Border Patrol agents and erode our capacity to seize fentanyl earlier in 2023, House Republicans left Washington in mid-December even as President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate remained to forge ahead on a bipartisan agreement,” Bates added.

White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt on social media added, “President Biden has requested $13.6 billion for border enforcement & migration management, increasing the Border Patrol by 1,300, judge teams by 375 and asylum officers by 1600 to expedite the screening process, and critical drug detection technology.”

House Republicans will be at the border Wednesday, “calling for solutions” to the “border crisis,” as Texas CBS affiliate KENS5 reports.

They’re also pushing for the Senate to pass HR2, legislation American Immigration Council policy director Aaron Reichlin-Melnick calls “hardline.”

“Mandates the indefinite detention of toddlers,” “Makes it a federal crime to violate a visa, even unknowingly,” “Empowers DHS to waive every single other law on the books to build, maintain, and operate border infrastructure,” and “Ends 99.9% of asylum,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Outlandish and Feral’: Trump Plans to Turn DC Trial Into Conspiracy-Fueled Reality TV Show

Meanwhile, several far-right Republicans got an early start in Texas, meeting up with a Fox News reporter, telling him, “shut the border down, or we’ll shut the government down. We control the money.”

IFrame Content

Wednesday morning Secretary Mayorkas responded to news the House is moving to impeach him.

Watch his remarks below or at this link.

---