In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) engaged in a fiery exchange, questioning witnesses on the crucial issue of border security.
The discussion, marked by intense moments and pointed questions, delved into the role of Congress in protecting citizens and the ongoing challenges faced at the southern border.
The Clash of Ideologies
The hearing witnessed a clash of ideologies as Hageman pressed the witnesses on the responsibility of every member of Congress to take necessary steps to protect their citizens.
The debate intensified as she challenged the defense of Sanctuary cities under the 10th Amendment, accusing the Biden Administration of commandeering resources from states dealing with the costs of illegal immigration.
Hageman’s scrutiny extended to legal aspects, citing an attorney general opinion drafted by John Burnovich in February 2022. The opinion addressed the federal government’s duty to protect states and their sovereign power of self-defense when facing an invasion.
The discussion revolved around the interpretation of the Constitution’s contrasting terms, such as invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and domestic violence, leading to a nuanced exploration of the legal landscape.
Cartels and Sovereignty
The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation of the term “invasion” and whether it extends beyond actions by states to encompass non-state actors. Burnovich emphasized historical perspectives, referring to James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers.
The debate showcased the complexity of defining invasion in the modern context, especially concerning issues like drug overdoses, violence, and criminal activities linked to illegal immigration.
Former Arizona Attorney General John Burnovich drew from his experiences to highlight the impact of cartels on state sovereignty.
He painted a dire picture of escalating violence, tragic drug overdoses, and the threat of Mexico becoming a narco-state. The testimony shed light on the urgency of addressing the situation and protecting citizens from the multifaceted challenges posed by illegal immigration.
People in the comments love Harriet Hageman and have some ideas: “Donald Trump should take a hard look at Harriet as a potential VP running mate. That would really piss off Liz!”
Another commenter added: “Appreciate this lady’s tenacity and smarts. ‘I am not going to bother coming back to you’ If you can’t answer the question. Love it!!!”
Others shared their thoughts on the border situation: “At this point, and actually some time ago, the problem of illegal alien invasion has already become unmanageable. Even if we completely close the borders, and not one illegal came across, we would still have a tremendous problem dealing with the ones here and deporting them here.”
The Invasion Debate
The hearing, marked by heated exchanges and legal intricacies, underscored the deep-seated divide on border security issues. As the debate continues, the focus remains on finding bipartisan solutions to protect citizens, uphold the Constitution, and navigate the complex landscape of immigration policies.
What do you think about Hageman’s words? Can Congress overcome ideological differences to form effective bipartisan solutions for border security?
How do legal interpretations of terms like “invasion” shape the government’s response to border-related challenges? What measures can be taken to address the escalating violence and drug-related issues associated with illegal immigration?