Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Sep 23, 2020 42 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Starting in a moment, putative Acting Secretary @DHS_Wolf will be testifying in front of Congress in support of his nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I'll be following along live through his testimony and highlighting immigration issues.

c-span.org/video/?475898-…
We begin with the opening statement of Sen. Johnson, who describes the role of DHS Secretary as an "enormous task" and then briefly describes things that DHS does.

He also says "DHS has done an extraordinary job in dealing with COVID."

Tell that to the people in ICE detention.
Next on to @SenGaryPeters, who begins by calling out the "abuse" of Acting officials in DHS, noting that the President waited more than 520 days to nominate a new Secretary.

Peters also says Wolf has been involved in "some of the most controversial" decisions DHS has ever made.
Senator Peters notes "reports that raise serious questions about the judgement and independence of agency leaders."

Peters displays a graphic on the rise in domestic extremist-related murders in the US, and notes that Wolf has been accused of downplaying those threats.
Moving now to Ted Cruz, who makes some bland platitudes about the Senate getting together and not yelling at each other. He says it is a "real pleasure" to introduce Chad Wolf, and calls him a "dedicated public service [sic]."

Cruz is quick to say he fully supports Wolf.
Ted Cruz is doing peak Ted Cruz about Portland and Chad Wolf, so I'll just leave it there.
We now move to Wolf's opening statement. He talks about how he was brought up to believe in the value of public service throughout his career. Always important, of course, to note that the majority of Wolf's career was as a lobbyist.
What's interesting about Wolf's opening statement is that he barely mentions immigration at all, despite DHS's near single-minded focus on immigration under his tenure, and his own role in the family separation policy, something he will likely be questioned about.
Moving to the questions, Senator Johnson asks a standard question that all nominees get, including whether Wolf will agree to appear in front of any Congressional committee if requested. Wolf says yes... but just days ago, he refused a lawful subpoena to testify.
Johnson asks Wolf to address four issues:

- The legality of his tenure and the GAO report
- ICE whistleblower about hysterectomies
- Whistleblower about Wolf's political interference
- Today's report that his wife's company has received DHS contracts
On the GAO report, Wolf notes (correctly) that the GAO's report is nonbinding, and says that he disagrees with the GAO's analysis, and thinks that he was legally serving.

One federal court has already said that he was likely serving unlawfully, though.
On the ICE whistleblower complaint about Irwin and forced hysterectomies, he says that he takes it seriously and the OIG is already on the ground investigating (that's new).

He also suggests many such claims are overblown, but says he'll investigate them thoroughly.
On Brian Murphy's whistleblower complaint—which accused Wolf of telling Murphy to suppress evidence politically damaging to the President—Wolf says that Murphy is lying, calls the allegations "patently false."

Wolf is accusing Murphy of being a bad employee and a liar.
On last night's story that his wife's company was awarded a $6 million contract in 2018 (when he was Chief of Staff). He says he just found out about it last night.

He says that whatever role he's had in DHS had no role in procurement and calls it a "fabricated story."
Moving on to Senator Peters, who asks "Is it true that in July you personally withheld from release an intelligence bulletin" on Russian interference?

Wofl says "did not ask to withhold it, he asked for the product to be improved."

That is... quite the hair to split.
Wolf says that the intelligence report he's accused of suppressing was not "withheld," just was low quality and needed to be improved, then was eventually published.

Peters is incredibly skeptical that it took two months to improve a two page document to adequate standards.
Peters now asked whether it's possible that Wolf's staff elevated the intelligence report to him because it was about Joe Biden. Wolf denies it completely.

When asked, he says he's personally reviewed "half a dozen to a dozen" products from DHS's intelligence office in total.
Peters also asks Wolf whether Ken Cuccinelli has ever withheld intelligence documents that would be damaging to the President. Wolf says no.

Peters asks for Wolf to commit to a briefing on political interference in DHS intelligence reports.

Wolf refuses to say yes.
Peters asks whether Wolf agrees with DHS's assessment that white nationalist violence is the greatest domestic threat to the United States.

Wolf agrees that white supremacists are the highest threat among "domestic violent extremists."
Moving back to Johnson, who asks "who is fomenting violence" at protests over the last four months.

Wolf uses this as an opportunity to discuss "anarchist extremists" and antifa.
Moving on to Senator Portman, who, in context of widespread civil unrest, brings up the officer killed in Oakland without mentioning that he was killed by a white supremacist trying to start a race war.

Portman says he thinks it's important to have confirmed leadership.
Portman asks about the health of FEMA's disaster relief fund, which the White House raided to pay for their $300 kinda-sorta-supplemental uninsurance payments. Portman says all $40 billion taken from FEMA has been been depleted already.

Wolf says there's still $25 billion left.
Senator Hassan asks Wolf whether he agrees with assessments that Russia is trying to denigrate Joe Biden. Wolf tries to reframe by also discussing China and Iran, and then admits that the answer is yes.
Moving on to Senator Lankford.

So far, we have had zero substantive questions about immigration, which is the area where Wolf has had the most impact in his time at DHS, apart from current protest issues.
The first question on the border comes from Senator Lankford, who asks about whether more drugs are coming across the border as demand is rising due to the pandemic.

Wolf highlights border walls and DOD assets. Wolf says drugs are coming through ports of entry more.
Wolf also says more US citizens are trafficking drugs these days.

Of course, importantly, DHS is *really* bad at detecting drugs at ports of entry. According to DHS's own statistics, they only detect and intercept around 2% of all cocaine coming through land ports of entry.
Lankford asks about the trend in people crossing the border. Wolf says there is a "different flow," noting that now it's mostly "single adults from Mexico."

Wolf points out to the "policies" he was responsible for in 2019 that stopped families. Dems should ask him about that!
We finally get questions on family separation. Senator Rosen asks Wolf about his prior testimony under oath, where he claimed that he had "no role" in developing the family separation policy.

She brings up a memo Wolf personally signed off about implementing family separation.
Rosen demands to know why Wolf didn't discuss this memo, noting the number two policy options "Announce that DHS was considering separating family units and considering treating the children as unaccompanied."

Here's the memo she's discussing.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/leake…
Wolf's claims that he did not have a role in family separation are completely disproved by the record. He claims that other people in Nielsen's staff wrote the memo, and tries to argue his prior testimony wasn't perjury because he didn't write the memo, just sent it to her.
Rosen asks: "Do you support ending family separation?"

Wolf says he supported Trump's decision to stop the Zero Tolerance policy.

But since then, he has repeatedly created and enacted policies dealing enormous harm to children. Ask him about those!
Rosen asks about the decision to end TPS. She notes that thousands of people with TPS are currently engaged in critical infrastructure practices.

Wolf refuses to commit to holding back on deportations of people with TPS once it expires, and says it's Congress's job to fix it.
I skipped the testimony of Senator Rick Scott, who didn't really discuss immigration at all. We now move to Senator Carper, who asks about DHS falling behind on having high numbers of open recommendations from the GAO. There are apparently 400+ unaddressed GAO recommendations.
Carper now asks about Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and asks about the effect of climate change on migration.

Wolf punts on the issue, highlighting the anti-asylum policies he's worked on and outrageously claims to have helped addressed corruption in those countries.
Notably, despite Senator Carper asking Wolf about the effect of climate change on migration, Wolf does not say the word climate, nor mention drought in the Guatemalan highlands. He simply pretends that Carper asked him a different question (and gets away with it).
Carper now asking about specific instances where Guatemala has gone back towards corruption, and why we haven't pushed back further.

Why not ask about Honduras, where DHS supports President Hernandez at the same time DOJ says he's a corrupt narcotrafficker.
Moving to Senator Hawley, who asks about human trafficking. Wolf brings up "fraudulent families," something last year DHS claimed was a big problem at the border.

But that was never true. Most were just uncles/aunts lying about being parents.

Here's never-before-reported info.
Moving to Senator Sinema, who asks about the fact that DHS has utterly failed to complete environmental reports on border walls and construction began before mitigation efforts were complete. She asks if environmental mitigation should occur BEFORE dynamiting in wildlife refuges.
Wolf is now asked about hundreds of children being locked in hotels prior to rapid expulsions. He says that this was a practice used before the current pandemic, which, while likely true, was almost certainly never done on the scale it's been done now.
Sinema now asking about PACR and HARP. "Migrants in CBP custody have inconsistent and limited ability to receive calls back from legal representations. Can you talk about how you plan to address this issue?

Wolf lies and says CBP tries to help people get access to counsel
!! Senator Sinema provides brand new statistics showing the extreme lack of representation in the PACR & HARP programs, which rush migrants through asylum screenings:

"Only 13 of over 2,000 HARP cases and only 18 of over 2,700 PACR cases have had a legal representative."
And with that bombshell, which Wolf doesn't have to respond to because Sinema's time was up, the hearing is over.

It seems very likely that Wolf's nomination will be successful in passing through the Committee.

I wish he'd been pushed on his anti-asylum record more.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ReichlinMelnick

Apr 5
Funny they ask this. Here's my effort at jotting down a brief timeline of actions the admin has "done to lower illegal crossings" over the last 3 years. I'm sure I'm missing some things. Some have been successful. Others have been not. But it's wild to claim they haven't tried.

Image
Image
To be clear, I’m neither endorsing these actions nor touting them as grand failures. As I’ve said before, Biden’s record on the border is a mixed bag. But the idea the administration has not taken actions it believes will reduce illegal entries is wrong as a matter of fact.
Take the CHNV deal the Biden admin made in January 2023; Mexico let the US expel more non-Mexicans migrants back across the border in exchange for the US starting a new parole program.

There are serious concerns about both parts. But unlawful crossings are demonstrably down.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 31
He still won’t stop lying about the nature of this program. There are no “gov’s secretive immigrant flights.” There are people who get approved for a government program and have to buy a plane ticket to get here. The “flights” are United, Delta, American, etc…
I’ll also note that @BensmanTodd still refuses to acknowledge the major holes in his story that I pointed out multiple times, including his flagrant misrepresentation about what the government said in response to his FOIA.
@BensmanTodd Bensman’s falsehood-ridden post about the FOIA lawsuit is directly responsible for fueling a massive misinformation campaign about the CHNV parole program, a campaign which has seen US senators spreading wild falsehoods like the existence of “secret charter flights.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 19
Beginning this moment, Texas law enforcement officers can arrest any person in the state they believe crossed illegally. And judges can now order people to walk back into Mexico at threat of 20 years in prison if they don't—even if the person has federal permission to be here.
Crucial context: Barrett and Kavanaugh both say they are not making any decision right now because of the weird procedural posture by which it made it to the Court's shadow docket, but say if the 5th Circuit doesn't act ASAP, they may change their minds.
SO what does this mean? Well, this means SB4 is in effect—for now. But the case is likely going back to the Supreme Court on an emergency poster within the next month, either because the 5th Circuit rules officially on the stay motion, or because they wait too long and don't.
Read 12 tweets
Mar 8
🚨HUGE news. Judge Tipton dismisses the multistate lawsuit against the Biden admin's CHNV parole program, finding that the states do not have standing to sue.

That leaves the program alive for now. Texas will no doubt appeal to the 5th Cir.

Decision: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

But before this Court may address the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Constitution requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have standing to bring suit. For the reasons explained below, they have not done so. The Court will first address certain evidentiary issues that have arisen along the way.
Here is the key finding that Judge Tipton made: evidence shows that, after the parole programs went into effect, border crossings by people from the four CHNV countries went down (⬇️).

As he reads 5th Circuit law, since the program was a success, there can't be any injury. In sum, when deciding whether a state has been injured for Article III standing purposes, the Fifth Circuit reviews whether the numbers of aliens, and the associated amount expended because of them, increased relative to those same numbers prior to the implementation of the challenged program. In MPP II, the Fifth Circuit declared that the “most important finding” was whether the agency action “increased the number of aliens released . . . into the United States.”16 20 F.4th at 966 (emphasis added). Here, that “most important finding” results in a different outcome, a decrease. And in contr...
The CHNV parole program represented Biden's big shift to a "carrot and stick" approach.

Mexico lets the US send 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans back across the border each month. In exchange, the US agrees to take 30,000 people a month through parole. Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 4
SB4 even goes beyond federal immigration law by allowing the state to prosecute people with green cards if the person was previously been deported and then allowed to reenter legally by the federal government—prob because the people who wrote the law didn't know that was a thing.
Under SB4, any noncitizen who has previously been deported commits a Class A misdemeanor by stepping into Texas—even if they have since legally reentered and obtained permanent legal status. There are no affirmative defenses of lawful presence for the reentry crime. Sec. 51.03.  ILLEGAL REENTRY BY CERTAIN ALIENS. (a) A person who is an alien commits an offense if the person enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in this state after the person: (1)  has been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States; or (2)  has departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are thousands of people living in Texas with green cards or other forms of legal immigration status who, at one point in their life, had been deported. If SB4 goes into effect, every one of them risks arrest.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 29
🚨 DOJ wins an injunction blocking Texas from putting SB4 into effect and creating its own deportation system.

The Court emphasizes that states "may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government."

Order here: aclu.org/wp-content/upl…
Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government. Second, SB 4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, to the detriment of the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations. Third, surges in immigration do not constitute an “invasion” within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing SB 4. Finally, to allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives on the basis of an ...
DOJ and the other plaintiffs (private orgs + El Paso gov) win on pretty much every argument.

First, the court finds that SB4 violates the Supremacy Clause, because "it is undisputed that the federal government has a dominant and supreme interest in the field of immigration." In short, it is undisputed that the federal government has a dominant and supreme interest in the field of immigration. Texas’s own state courts acknowledge “the matter of entry into the United States” is “wholly preempted by federal law,” Hernandez v. State, 613 S.W.2d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), as are “matters involving deportation.” Gutierrez v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167, 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). By regulating a sphere dominated by federal interests, SB 4 violates the Supremacy Clause.
Next, the court finds that SB4's creation of new state crimes of illegal entry and reentry are field preempted, noting that the law "attempt[s] to vest a state with the power to punish federal immigration offenses," which is barred under Arizona v. US (2012). For that reason, “[w]here Congress occupies an entire field, as it has in the field of [noncitizen] registration, complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Id. at 401. “Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards. In sum, Sections 51.02 and 51.03 of SB 4 cannot be differentiated from Section 3 of SB 1070. Tex. Penal Code § 51.02–51.03. Both laws attempt to vest a state with the power to punish federal immigration offenses. But the “basic premise of field preemption,” reaffirmed in Arizo...
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(