Jeh Johnson Changes His Story

jeh_johnson_powerpointOn Tuesday, during Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s testimony at a House Judiciary Oversight Hearing, Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pointed out the lack of factual basis for a claim Jeh Johnson has often made in the past in favor of amnesty. In speeches in the past, when there is no one to call him out for his failures of logic, Secretary Johnson has asserted that amnesty would benefit homeland security, because illegal aliens would “come out of the shadows” and become accountable to the government. He would say this though even though it is unreasonable to think that the illegal aliens who identifiably pose security threats would identify themselves to the government when they know they can’t pass a background check.

Congressmen Gowdy asked Secretary Johnson to account for these statements. He asked Secretary Johnson if he recognized his own words: “I want people who are living in this country undocumented to come forward, to get on the books and subject themselves to a background check so I can know who they are… from a Homeland Security perspective, I want people to come forward.” Then Congressman Gowdy asked Johnson if he thought it was realistic to think someone like the alleged killer of Kate Steinle,  Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who Gowdy called “a career criminal,” would have come forward, knowing he wouldn’t be able to pass even the most lenient of background checks.

In response, Jeh Johnson said, he never actually meant to imply that amnesty would encourage illegal aliens who pose security risks to come forward themselves—despite the fact that any reasonable person would absolutely have interpreted his often repeated line in that way. What he really meant, he claimed at the hearing with a straight face, was that he was talking about “people who we hope will report crime,” not, apparently, the criminals themselves.

Amazing how Secretary Johnson was able to so casually jettison his often expressed reason why amnesty was necessary “from a homeland security perspective.” As someone who has listened to many of his variations on this line since he became Homeland Security Secretary, I can say, it’s simply not a believable interpretation that he meant to convey such a meaning with his comments.

In addition, his new reason for arguing that amnesty has homeland security benefits is in fact as wrong as the one he disavowed. The idea that the immigration laws must be disregarded in order to encourage immigrant communities to report crime has been used to justify “sanctuary” cities as well. But amnesty advocates lack evidence backing it up…

See next week’s Legislative Update for a full summary of the hearing…

About Author


The latest guest opinion pieces from FAIR.


  1. avatar

    Its Like Saying All Red Meat is Bad for You

    When sodium nitrate and nitrite preservative in sausage, bacon, lunch meats, etc….is the culprit. It all gets mixed together and we used no blind study. The IAs are the preservatives and we totally ignore the research evidence that points at their group as being detrimental.

  2. avatar

    Gutierrez said if Trump hadn’t been talking about it wouldn’t have been reported by the media. Like MANY crimes just like it that have happened before. That’s the problem dude, ONE is too many! Deport them all and close the border and only let them in after a background check.

  3. avatar

    No surprise here. Chicago Congressman Luis Gutierrez this past week portrayed the murder of Kate Steinle by a five time deported illegal as “a little thing”. His exact quote was “Every time a little thing like this happens they use the most extreme example to say it must be eliminated.” Actually, had Trump not been talking about this same thing, it likely would have been buried by the media as has happened in many previous cases exactly like this.

    I’m sure it’s not a little thing to the families who have to deal with the consequences. And the fact is that the San Francisco killer said he specifically wanted to go there because he knew it was a sanctuary city.

    Gutierrez doesn’t care about American citizens. He’s the same guy who portrayed ICE agents as “jackbooted thugs” for doing workplace raids. His beloved sanctuary city of Chicago has been asking the state to bail it out of it’s financial crisis, a lot of which is caused by the city offering benefits to illegals, but the state says no way.

    • avatar

      Just when I thought that the most disgusting thing had come out of Guttierez’ mouth, he tops it. The guy is a real and total piece of rotten offal.

      • avatar

        All the Republican candidates were supposed to condemn Trump for telling the truth about many of the illegals coming over the border. Will the Democrats condemn Gutierrez for trivializing the death of a woman dying in her father’s arms? Doubt it.

  4. avatar
    Janice Janes on

    the irony is the illegals would have no crime to report if illegals weren’t here. Americans aren’t preying of illegals, other illegals are. Doe no one in government see that?

  5. avatar

    Expecting any bona fide logic from Mr. Jeh Johnson would be a clear case of wishful thinking.

    This grossly incompetent (even when compared to his boss) bureaucrat has been appointed for a reason: to derail any meaningful enforcement of the border and immigration law, or whatever is left of it.

    Just think about it, if you don’t want your friend’s watch to get fixed, whom would you appoint to repair it: a watchmaker or a road worker?

  6. avatar

    BO’s administration is loaded with warp minded imbeciles, it’s an extreme case of follow the leader after all!

  7. avatar

    If a Sanctuary City ignores federal law, the WH thinks that’s fine. If Sheriff Joe enforces laws to keep Maricopa County safe from criminal aliens, he is prosecuted by the WH. It is hard to believe that is the case but it is. I feel like Alice in Wonderland, wondering when I am going to awake, but I am not dreaming. Worst, by far, president ever! And not because he’s black, because he is threatening our democracy without anyone other than Trump pushing back.

    • avatar

      Have you noticed that just about every one of Obola’s cabinet appointees is an AA quota. They are either a woman, black, brown, gay or transgender with the only exception being illegal or someother off the wall rainbow color. They all do, however, share in common is an absolute hatred for WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and everything they stand for. They are not out to destroy all America, just white male America. And they have the votes to do it. About 50% women plus 20% blacks easily outvotes 30% white male everytime. Your next President is going to be an wrinkled old lady in a rocking chair with grandious dillusions about some imaginary glass ceiling.

  8. avatar

    The liberals want us to allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to stay unlawfully in the USA until after some of them kill, rape, burglarize, rob, etc citizens. That approach is nuts. At the very least illegals have to commit identity theft after illegally entering our nation and then often take jobs that don’t belong to them and the list goes on to remain in the USA for any extended period of time. I find it constantly disappointing that most polls never give the third option beyond amnesty and mass deportation……the third option being real interior enforcement at the job site and by using state and local enforcement in a sensible way to enforce our immigration laws. And have real border control and full implementation of the Real ID Act (still not fully in effect since it passed in 2005) and a real entry/exit system (yet another promise not fulfilled). Unfortunately we have the best Congress (special interest) money can buy……

  9. avatar

    Julie Axelrod: But amnesty advocates lack evidence backing it up…

    Thank you for that Julie, but anyone with a modicum of common sense and decency enough to tell the truth already knows that.

    Instead of taking such an aloof and disinterested stance in reporting the constant lies coming from high level officials in Washington, DC, why don’t you remind Americans how insulted they should be that the Obama administration is so disrespectful of their intelligence? Perhaps even suggest that citizens should complain and to who, to get this low-level sleazy behavior stopped?

    You are ignoring unacceptable behavior from the leaders of this country. Why don’t you use your position to call attention to it and suggest ways that citizens can insist on honesty from our leaders?

    • avatar

      You contradicted yourself. You acknowledge that Ms Axelrod is “reporting the constant lies coming from high level officials in Washington” but then claim she’s “ignoring unacceptable behavior from the leaders of this country.” How is pointing out their lies “ignoring” their behavior?

      • avatar

        You are right I did contradict myself. What I meant was that I want people who represent organizations like FAIR, NumbersUSA and CIS to amp up their objections to the lies of politicians and the administration. Their deception and lies are insulting – how can we urge them to tell the truth?