By Frank Bowman

The current breathless rush by the House Homeland Security Committee to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas was made possible when the full House sidetracked an impeachment resolution authored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene by referring it to that Committee. The original Greene resolution relied heavily on the claim that immigration and narcotics trafficking across the U.S. southern border amount to an “invasion” as defined in Article IV of the Constitution, and that Secy Mayorkas’ asserted failure to prevent the “invasion” constitutes an impeachable “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Although the current draft of the impeachment resolution against Secy Mayorkas that will be marked up by the Committee tomorrow has abandoned the “invasion” claim, one suspects that various Republicans in the Committee or later on the House floor will allude to it.

In addition, the “invasion” claim is at the heart of Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s justification for his open defiance of federal authority over border policy and enforcement in his state.

For both these reasons, I thought it would be useful to compose a comprehensive debunking of the claim that immigration is a constitutional “invasion.”

The good folks at Just Security have published my conclusions, which you can find at this link – “Immigration Is Not ‘Invasion’ Under the Constitution.’