In yet another fiery exchange that highlights the deep ideological divide over border policy, progressive firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attempted to take on former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Tom Homan during a congressional hearing. The subject? The Trump administration’s much-criticized border policies, particularly family separation.
During the heated hearing, Ocasio-Cortez took aim at Homan, accusing him of endorsing policies that she claimed violated international human rights agreements. She asserted that the separation of families at the border was not only cruel but illegal under international law. However, what followed was a textbook example of how emotion-driven rhetoric falls flat when confronted by hard facts.
Ocasio-Cortez opened by stating, “We as members of the United Nations signed into an international human rights agreement, saying very clearly that family separation is a violation of human rights.” She went on to question how the U.S. reached such a point, seemingly confident in her assertion.
But Homan, a man with decades of experience in law enforcement and border security, wasn’t having it. In a calm yet firm rebuttal, he corrected the congresswoman’s misleading narrative. Homan emphasized that he didn’t author the family separation memo, but instead signed the “zero-tolerance” memo, a policy aimed at upholding the law and securing the border. He explained, “I gave Secretary Nielsen numerous recommendations on how to secure the border and save lives.”
But AOC, not one to back down, pressed further, saying, “But it says here that you read, you gave her numerous options, but the recommendation was option three, family separation.” Homan countered by clarifying that family separation was one of many options presented, stressing that his goal was border security and saving lives. He firmly stood by the zero-tolerance policy, which applies to anyone who breaks U.S. immigration laws, just as it applies to U.S. citizens who commit crimes.
In what can only be described as a moment of clarity, Homan dropped the hammer on Ocasio-Cortez’s argument by comparing the situation at the border to common law enforcement practices in the U.S. “If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in a car, I’m gonna be separated. When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from the family,” he explained. This comparison drove home a key point that Ocasio-Cortez conveniently ignored—separation of parents from children happens in law enforcement situations all the time, not just at the border.
Still, AOC attempted to salvage her argument by claiming that asylum seekers aren’t committing a crime. However, Homan, ever the professional, corrected her yet again, citing U.S. legal code: “Unlawfully crossing the border, whether a migrant is seeking asylum or not, is still a crime if they don’t go through a legal port of entry.” He referred to Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, which clearly criminalizes illegal entry into the country.
Ocasio-Cortez, apparently unwilling or unable to process Homan’s factual responses, repeated her talking point: “Seeking asylum is legal.” Homan agreed—but with one critical caveat: “If you want to seek asylum, go to the port of entry. Do it the legal way.”
The exchange underscores the fundamental problem with the progressive left’s approach to border security. While Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in the “Squad” often lean on emotional appeals and grandstanding, they repeatedly ignore the reality of U.S. law. Homan’s straightforward and fact-based approach exposed the congresswoman’s lack of understanding—or perhaps, willful ignorance—of how immigration law is enforced in this country.
At the end of the day, what this spat reveals is simple: facts matter. And in this case, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was left with nothing but frustration as Homan schooled her on the law, proving once again that feelings aren’t a substitute for reality.
