PJ Media: Jasmine Crockett Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving for the GOP
In a display of stunning ignorance that would be hilarious if it weren’t so dangerous, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) continues her streak of handing Republicans political ammunition. Crockett has become the Democrats’ latest media darling, and Republicans couldn’t possibly be happier about it. Her latest gift? Going on MSNBC to tell us what she really thinks about illegal immigration. The Texas Democrat, who apparently skipped her law school classes on federal statutes, boldly declared that entering the country illegally “is not a crime.”
Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent claim on MSNBC that entering the country illegally “is not a crime” has sparked significant backlash, given that it contradicts established U.S. law—specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which defines illegal entry as a federal misdemeanor punishable by fines and up to six months in prison, with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. This statement, made on national media, reflects either a profound ignorance of the law or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent it, both of which are troubling from a sitting member of Congress. While Crockett enjoys protections under the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution) for statements made on the House floor, her public remarks outside that context—especially ones so demonstrably false—raise legitimate questions about accountability. There is, indeed, a case to be made that such behavior warrants formal correction within Congress, and here’s why, along with who should lead the charge.
The Case for Congressional Action
Duty to Uphold Public Trust: Members of Congress are elected to represent and inform their constituents, not to mislead them. Crockett’s statement, delivered with the authority of her office, risks eroding public trust in the legislative branch by spreading misinformation about a critical issue—illegal immigration—that consistently ranks high in voter concerns. A 2024 election exit poll from Edison Research showed immigration as a top issue for 11% of voters, with broader public sentiment favoring stricter enforcement (e.g., a 2023 Gallup poll found 70% of Americans viewed illegal immigration as a “serious problem”). When a lawmaker publicly denies the criminality of an act explicitly codified as such, it undermines the rule of law and confuses the public, who rely on representatives for accurate information.
Precedent for Accountability: Congress has mechanisms to address misleading or irresponsible behavior by its members, even when criminal prosecution isn’t an option. The House can censure or reprimand a member for conduct deemed unbecoming or detrimental to the institution’s integrity. Historical examples abound: in 2010, Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) was censured for financial misconduct, and in 2021, Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) faced censure for posting a violent video targeting a colleague. While Crockett’s statement isn’t violent or unethical in the same vein, its brazen inaccuracy on a matter of law—coming from a lawyer and legislator—could be argued to breach the standard of conduct expected of a representative, particularly if it’s part of a pattern of reckless rhetoric.
Impact on Legislative Credibility: The House of Representatives operates as a deliberative body where facts and law should anchor debate. Crockett’s claim, if unchallenged, normalizes a level of ignorance or dishonesty that weakens Congress’s ability to legislate effectively on immigration or any issue. If representatives can assert falsehoods without consequence, it sets a precedent that diminishes the institution’s authority and emboldens further misinformation. This is especially pertinent given the polarized state of immigration policy, where clarity and accuracy are essential to productive discourse.
Political Consequences Demand Response: As the PJ Media article notes, Crockett’s gaffe is a “gift” to Republicans, amplifying their narrative that Democrats are soft on border security—a winning issue for them in 2024. This isn’t just partisan point-scoring; it’s a signal that unchecked misstatements can have electoral ramifications, potentially harming her party and constituents who depend on credible representation. A corrective measure could mitigate this damage by demonstrating that Congress polices its own.
What Should Be Done
The House Ethics Committee is the primary body tasked with investigating and recommending action for member misconduct. While Crockett’s statement isn’t a clear-cut ethics violation (e.g., corruption or abuse of power), the committee could interpret it under its broad mandate to address “conduct that reflects discreditably on the House” (House Rule XI, Clause 3). A formal inquiry could assess whether her remarks constitute a pattern of negligence or intentional misrepresentation, culminating in a recommendation for censure—a public rebuke that doesn’t remove her from office but signals disapproval and demands accountability.
Alternatively, House leadership could initiate a resolution of reprimand, a less severe option than censure, directly on the floor. This would involve a vote to formally criticize Crockett’s statement, forcing members to go on record and provide a public corrective to her claim. Either action would serve as a deterrent to similar behavior and reinforce the expectation that lawmakers align public statements with verifiable facts.
Who Should Call Her “On the Carpet”
House Republican Leadership: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) have both the authority and incentive to act. Immigration is a cornerstone of the GOP platform, and Crockett’s statement plays into their narrative of Democratic incompetence. Johnson could refer the matter to the Ethics Committee or sponsor a reprimand resolution, framing it as a defense of legal integrity rather than mere partisanship. Their leadership would resonate with their base and exploit the political opportunity Crockett handed them.
House Oversight Committee: As a body tasked with ensuring government accountability, this committee—chaired by Representative James Comer (R-Ky.)—could summon Crockett to explain her statement in a hearing. While it lacks direct disciplinary power, such a move would publicly challenge her ignorance and force her to confront the law she misrepresented. Comer’s committee has a history of tackling high-profile issues (e.g., Biden administration oversight), making this a plausible venue.
Her Own Party Leadership: Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) should, in theory, be interested in curbing Crockett’s missteps to protect the party’s image. Her statement undermines Democratic credibility on immigration—a vulnerability Republicans exploited in 2024. However, given the party’s reluctance to self-police (e.g., no action against Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial remarks in 2019 until GOP pressure mounted), this seems less likely unless public or internal pressure grows significantly.
Do not let this slide
While Crockett’s legal protections shield her from prosecution, they don’t absolve her of responsibility for misleading the public on a national stage. The House has tools—Ethics Committee inquiries, censure, or reprimand—to address such behavior, and failing to use them risks normalizing falsehoods in a body meant to uphold truth and law. Republican leadership, particularly Speaker Johnson or Chairman Comer, are best positioned to call her “on the carpet,” given their political leverage and the issue’s resonance with their agenda. Democrats might hesitate, but their inaction could cost them further credibility. Crockett’s “stunning ignorance” demands a response—not just for partisan gain but to preserve the integrity of Congress itself.