House Republicans appear ready to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over what they say is his failure to enforce the country’s immigration laws.

But many of the Republican senators who would play jury to those charges are cool to the impeachment push.

The House took the first step in its proceedings against Mayorkas on Wednesday — a hearing building the case that he has been derelict in his duties at the border. Mayorkas has presided over a record number of crossings, and Republicans place blame squarely at his feet.

Senate Republicans share that frustration and have blocked funding for Ukraine unless the administration agrees to border reforms. Many of the chamber’s conservatives have even joined calls for his removal.

But within the ranks of the Senate GOP conference, there is a sense that the House’s anger is misplaced. The crisis at the southern border is unacceptable, they say, but culpability lies with the man who gives Mayorkas his orders: President Joe Biden.

“I think the idea of impeaching Cabinet secretaries who can be fired by the president is just sort of a wasted effort altogether,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said. “I think impeachments should be reserved for people who don’t have a boss.”

If House Republicans are successful, which appears increasingly likely, Mayorkas would be just the second Cabinet official ever impeached. The first, who subsequently was acquitted, was impeached in 1876.

Acquittal in Mayorkas’s case also appears likely given Democrats’ control of the Senate.

At least one GOP senator, Mitt Romney (R-UT), told reporters he has not yet seen evidence that meets the constitutional standard of impeachment. But the biggest Republican gripe is that the proceedings are a distraction at a time when the chamber is attempting to avoid a government shutdown.

On top of that, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) is engaged in delicate negotiations on the border with his Democratic counterparts in the Senate and White House.

“Maybe I’d vote to convict him and maybe I wouldn’t,” Cramer said. “I just think in terms of the very, very skimpy calendar we have and the workload that we have, there’s things we should be doing that are more important to the American people. If we impeach Mayorkas, that isn’t going to change a single policy at the southern border. We need to work on changing policies.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) made a similar case to the Washington Examiner.

The muted reception in the Senate is not entirely surprising. The upper chamber is often called the “cooling saucer” that tempers House emotions. Part of it is simply owing to the unique role the Senate plays in impeachment.

“I can’t make a judgment on that because if he is impeached, I’m a juror,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared when asked if Mayorkas should be impeached. “I’m not going to tell the House what to do, but I can sure understand why they’re upset because he took an oath to faithfully execute the law.”

That sentiment even extends to some of the Senate’s most ardent conservatives.

“We obviously have a different role in the Senate on impeachment,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) said. “They’re kind of the grand jury, and we’re the actual jury. So, I try to maintain some sense of neutrality in these things and try to actually look at the evidence as we should.”

Not all Republicans are so circumspect — Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the former Senate majority whip, is ready to convict Mayorkas today.

“He should have been gone a long time ago,” Cornyn said. “I’ve got no use for Mayorkas.”

Cornyn is in good company. It is hard to see many Republicans voting for acquittal once the matter is brought to the Senate, and even those withholding judgment have begun to sketch out a rationale for conviction.

The central critique of the House’s impeachment effort is that it is predicated on a policy disagreement, not any criminal act. Given the standard is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Democrats say the charges against Mayorkas are baseless.

This is the trepidation of institutionalists, who make a slippery slope argument on impeachment. But Senate Republicans will face immense pressure to convict after the House takes the formal step.

“Impeachment is fundamentally a political solution and a political tool,” Vance said. “If you’re not doing your job, I think at a certain level, it does rise to an impeachable offense. Ultimately, it’s up to the House whether that’s true in this case.”

The irony of impeaching Mayorkas at the same time he is participating in the Senate border talks is not lost on Republicans.

“Hopefully, it doesn’t complicate James’s work to have the House doing all of this,” Cramer said of Lankford’s effort. “I’m certain it’s not a coordinated effort.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), the lead Democratic negotiator in the Senate, doubted the controversy swirling around Mayorkas would impede talks but conceded that it is not helpful.

“My interest is not in getting a bill passed the Senate,” Murphy said. “My interest is getting a bill signed into law. So, the more political the House is on the issue of immigration, the harder it is to get a bill across the finish line.”

Negotiators emphasize that Mayorkas is providing technical assistance, not negotiating on the White House’s behalf. But his mere involvement has allowed Democrats to portray him as a constructive force in securing the border.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) made exactly that point in blocking an attempt by Senate conservatives to bring up a “no confidence” resolution against Mayorkas on Tuesday afternoon.

The House is expected to hold a second impeachment hearing next week, clearing the way for a vote on impeachment itself as soon as this month.