Mayorkas’ Twisted Notion Of “Justice” Is Unjust To Americans
In George Orwell’s 1984, the Party’s three chief slogans were “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” The British author was referring to the manner in which totalitarian regimes (be they communist or fascist) engage in semantic acrobatics and inverting the meaning of words to mean the exact opposite of how they had traditionally been understood. Sadly, President Biden’s homeland security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, who recently referred to mass amnesty for illegal aliens and tolerating mass illegal migration at the southern border as “justice,” has engaged in similarly Orwellian linguistic manipulation.
The troubling assertion was made during a hearing on November 16, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked Mayorkas “[w]hat should be a higher priority of the United States Government? Securing our border or giving amnesty to illegal aliens who are already here?” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) head responded – or rather tried to avoid the question and have it both ways – that “[j]ustice is our priority. That includes securing our border and providing relief to those who qualify for it under our laws.” When pressed further by the Arkansas senator, Mayorkas stated that border security and mass amnesty are “inextricably intertwined.”
Frustratingly, he refuses to even acknowledge that mass illegal migration may be harmful and unjust to Americans, or that his beloved pet project of mass amnesty is unfair to both law-abiding Americans and legal immigrants who followed the rules – two groups that, incidentally, will have to cover the significant costs of amnesty.
And what “laws” is he referring to? The amnesty snuck into Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” spending bill has not cleared the Senate. So far, U.S. law still says that those living in the country illegally are subject to removal, regardless of the DHS secretary’s personal preferences.
Cotton also asked Mayorkas whether he was “satisfied”about the record-breaking numbers of illegal border crossings this year. The secretary’s answer is quite telling: “No, I’m not, but worse is to promulgate and operationalize a policy that defies our values as a nation.” He did not define exactly what he means by “our values as a nation,” but, apparently, in Mayoras-speak it is tantamount to a permissive illegal migration free-for-all and coddling and rewarding those who violate our laws and borders.
Predictably, he also repeatedly referred to the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy as “cruel” in the context of Sen. Cotton’s questions about the $450,000 per person payouts the Biden administration is planning to reward certain illegal aliens with for suffering the consequences of breaking our laws. Aside from the fact that Americans are certainly separated from their children and families when they break the law, Mayorkas and his ilk look the other way when Americans and immigrants alike are killed as a result of crimes committed by illegal aliens. In fact, when asked about illegal alien crime during a March House hearing, Mayorkas got offended and claimed the question was “extraordinarily disrespectful.” As in the totalitarian dystopias chastised by Orwell, the anger of the powers that be is directed not at those who commit wrongdoings, but at those who point them out. But what are a few victims if the end result is the supposed “justice” of amnesty? One has to break some eggs to make an omelet, right?
One strikingly obvious thing about Mayorkas’ verbal gymnastics during hearings is his struggle to weasel his way out of giving straight and honest answers to direct and simple questions. He surely understands that his is a losing case if expressed bluntly and openly. But he said enough to demonstrate what his priorities are, as if they weren’t already apparent during the past several months of his failed leadership at the DHS. However, Mayorkas needs to remember that his salary is paid for by American taxpayers, and it is his job to serve Americans and their best interests. Instead, he chooses to focus primarily and, in fact, solely, on the desires and needs of foreign nationals. His is a textbook case of a government official openly and brazenly flouting his duties – and that has nothing to do with the classic Western understanding of justice.