An invasion but no soldiers in sight

Orion Rummler, in an article for The 19th posted on Daily Kos, reported the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles will no longer update a transgender person’s driver’s license for gender identity.

Without accurate identification, transgender and nonbinary people face greater risks for violence, discrimination and harassment in everyday interactions, like while showing an ID at the club or grocery store, or while traveling. This is especially true if someone’s perceived gender expression does not match the gender marker on their driver’s license; this can out many trans people against their will.

The change was not prompted by a change in law. Instead, a new department head, appointed by DeathSantis, is adjusting policy to align with other state laws. Existing policy says the department can refuse to issue a license if an applicant has committed fraud. The new policy says “misrepresenting one’s gender” is fraud.

Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks LGBTQ+ policy, expects to see more states taking non-legislative action to restrict transgender rights in the coming year. ... “I think this is just a sign of more things to come,” he said. “I wouldn't be surprised to see this exact kind of policy move replicated in other states.”

An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported on Sunday that House Republicans released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They vowed to swiftly push it through.

Republicans contend Mayorkas is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that amount to a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” on immigration and a “breach of the public trust.” Impeachment, they say, is “Congress's only viable option.” “Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully and systemically refused to comply with the immigration laws, failed to control the border to the detriment of national security, compromised public safety, and violated the rule of law and separation of powers in the Constitution, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States," the impeachment resolution says. ... Democrats have lambasted the impeachment proceedings, calling them a waste of time when lawmakers should be working together to solve the problems. They also say Republicans are part of the problems at the border, with Republicans attacking Mayorkas even as they have failed to give his department the tools it needs to manage the situation.

On Tuesday Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Republicans are admitting this impeachment exercise is political. They are doing it to “send a message to the administration” as Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas put it to Fox News. The Postal Service is that broken? Carrier pigeons don’t fly between the Capitol and the White House? Walter Einenkel of Kos wrote about Democrats pushing back. He used an example from a meeting of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Rep. Daniel Goldman decided to use his time to give a masterclass on how hypocritical, political, and ultimately dangerous this endeavor is, describing the proceedings as “completely debasing and demeaning the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution, and it is a gross, gross injustice to the credibility of this institution.” Goldman reminded the committee that impeachment has only been used against people who have abused their power and should not be used as a way to attack what you might believe to be “bad” policy. “That is for elections and that is for legislation,” Goldman continued.

Einenkel included Goldman’s conclusion:

So your own party is sabotaging and undermining this administration's efforts to address the border while you are trying to impeach him by saying that they're not addressing the border. The hypocrisy is the least of it. Your attack on the rule of law and our democracy is the worst of it. And you better be careful about the bed that you make.

McCarter has more examples of Democrats pushing back. They did such things as ask the clerk to read out all of the amendments (all defeated) and report on the hypocrisy of individual Republicans. So after 15 hours of debate and early on Wednesday morning the Committee approved the articles of impeachment along party lines, 18-15. Einenkel also wrote that Rep. Robert Garcia of California used his committee time to review all the weird ideas the nasty guy has proposed for the border: alligator moats, electrify the border fence and add spikes, and shoot migrants in the legs. And bomb norther Mexico. That’s his border plan. Robert Downen and Uriel J. García, in a Texas Tribune article posted on Kos discussed the Texas side of the immigration debate. They include how the word “invasion” got pulled into the description. It’s first use wasn’t by Gov. Greg Abbott, though he adopted it quickly. The word brings, of course, the image of soldiers with tanks crossing the Rio Grande. What Russia did to Ukraine nearly two years ago was an invasion. That’s not what is happening. There are high numbers of immigrants crossing the border, but they are not set on conquest. But because they use the word “invasion,” Abbott and others claim (as written by the authors), “Texas has the right to supersede the federal government’s Constitutionally outlined immigration powers in order to defend itself.” It is a claim that federal judges have shot down. Defense of borders is a federal responsibility. Calling it an “invasion” has contributed to a couple acts of terrorism, including a man setting fire to an Austin synagogue. He railed that Jews are “invaders.” The word is also wrapped into the Great Replacement Theory, the belief that the reason why non whites are invited into the country is so there would be enough of them to replace white people in national power structures. Given all that there are various voices now prodding for violence.

“What is this going to turn into, a civil war?” Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked Lt. Gov Dan Patrick over the weekend. “You’ve got Texas rights vs. federal rights, both sides with guns.” Patrick responded: “We believe, constitutionally, we are right. We have a right to defend our citizens. We have a right to defend this country.”

On Wednesday Mark Sumner of Kos reported the results of a poll conducted by Civiqs for Kos.

The results show that a majority of Americans (58%) believe there need to be more restrictions on immigration. That’s to be expected, given the level of attention this issue has received and the constant drumbeat of stories including the word “crisis” or even “invasion.” However, a very similar majority (57%) made it clear that the solution to this issue is for Democrats and Republicans to compromise on legislation now, rather than waiting until after the election. And a detailed look at this question shows that even Trump voters aren’t completely sold on waiting for Trump.

There are, of course, the expected wide difference in responses by parties. I’ll let you read the details.