Immigration Watch International (2): First Congressional Hearing at the Border Turns Up the Heat on the Biden Adminstration

Thursday, February 23, 2023

First Congressional Hearing at the Border Turns Up the Heat on the Biden Adminstration

YUMA, Ariz. -- The city council chamber was packed with local residents and sheriffs across the state on Thursday to listen to the House Judiciary Committee hearing about the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, marking the first of such a hearing to take place with the new GOP majority.

Yuma County Supervisor District 2 Jonathan Lines, Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot, and Dr. Robert Trenschel, president and CEO of Yuma Regional Medical Center, each testified how the influx of illegal immigrants and drugs coming into their area has strained the resources for this remote town.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have entered into the Yuma Sector, with many of them requiring some level of medical care. This has caused the Yuma Regional Medical Center to have $26 million in unpaid bills for services rendered to illegal immigrants. It has also caused care for U.S. citizens to be delayed or be sent all the way to Phoenix because their local hospital was full. Audience members nodded in agreement when Trenschel sorrowfully acknowledged the delay in care to U.S. citizens since they treat people based on who needs it the most.

Sheriff Wilmot testified the cartels that operate across the border in Mexico and within his jurisdiction have become much stronger due to the increase in cashflow from the thousands of people that are paying them to illegally enter the United States.

Lines testified he was given new numbers from sources with U.S. Customs and Border Protection revealing Border Patrol was now seizing 48 percent of fentanyl being smuggled into the country, meaning between the ports of entry, because the recent decrease in illegal crossings allowed them to go back to patrolling the border. That number is significant since most of the fentanyl being seized was at a port of entry.

Perhaps the biggest round of applause from the audience was when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said he supported the articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that have already been introduced in this session of the House. The purpose of the border hearings is to strengthen the GOP's case for impeachment against the Secretary.

None of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee decided to attend the official hearing. Their absence was brought up multiple times during hearing and it did not go unnoticed by the audience, even the liberal ones.

Yuma resident Manuel told Townhall he thought the Republicans were being hypocrites for saying they support law enforcement but have not shown their support for the Capitol police officers on January 6, but he still thought Democrats should have come to the city.

"I think there should've been a few, yeah, but unfortunately that's the state of politics right now. And I do fault them for it," said Manuel.

"I would hope [Democrats] would come here...We need them to come here, we need them to see it firsthand. More than just being angry, I think they really missed an opportunity to come and see firsthand what's going on here at the border," Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb told Townhall, noting he believes the GOP members were very sincere in their mission to hear what has been happening at the border and their resolve to fix the problem.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) promised more hearings will take place to further investigate how poorly the Biden administration has handled the issues of the border and immigration so legislative action can take place. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has stated impeachment for Mayorkas is not out of the question.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/02/24/first-hearing-at-the-border-turns-up-the-heat-on-biden-adminstration-n2619923

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, February 23, 2023

First Congressional Hearing at the Border Turns Up the Heat on the Biden Adminstration

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors