Tim Steller's column: Pro-Trump right wants to preserve border problems

For years, it’s been clear there are people who want Americans to view the U.S.-Mexico border as a chaotic hellscape.

Those of us who live in the borderlands know that it’s a lot more complicated, and generally more peaceful, than that. But there have always been enough problems somewhere along the line to give examples to point to — if not in Arizona, then over in Texas.

It has benefited some politicians and interest groups for the country to view this broad region as one wide swath of illegal crossings, drug smuggling and shootouts. Remember Gov. Jan Brewer talking about beheaded bodies in the desert — a claim she later retracted? That’s the stuff I’m talking about.

Of course, this issue has been Donald Trump’s calling card since he entered presidential politics in 2015, and it helped him get elected.

It’s not unusual that politicians and interest groups would try to mold public perception on a topic in order to achieve the goals that they want. And in the last year or so, the problems have been real: Too many people crossing between ports of entry for agents to vet and process adequately, leading to mass releases into the interior.

On border issues, though, I’ve assumed that right-wing politicians’ idea was to juice up fear in order to come to their desired, iron-fisted solutions to the real problems that exist along our international line.

Their chosen policies might not be my chosen policies — they favor walls and I don’t, for example — but they would at least be aiming to reduce crossings between ports and smuggling at ports in their own way.

In the last week, though, it’s become clearer than ever that solving problems may not be their aim at all. The idea of Trump and his avid supporters, it’s clear now, is to continually amp up fear to create a constant sense of threat that will pay political dividends in perpetuity.

Solving problems diminishes their political power and would rob Trump of a reason to take drastic measures if he reaches the White House again.

Real impact possible

Six months ago, Republicans banded together to block efforts to send more aid to Ukraine and even Israel unless the bill also included money and fixes for the border issues they claimed to want to solve.

Surprisingly, Pres. Joe Biden agreed to combine the issues. In early October, three senators, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, went to work negotiating.

One of them was our own independent senator, Kyrsten Sinema; the others were Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma.

I haven’t always been a fan of Sinema’s border storytelling. More than once, for example, she has noted that she was born and grew up in Tucson as an explanation for her longstanding familiarity with border issues. But she left Tucson at age 8, long before a child would have noticed that sort of thing.

Still, as a senator, she became chair of the border-management subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee. She has learned the issues and tried to get practical things done — like ensuring that people who qualify to apply for asylum get work permission so they don’t become public charges.

After months of negotiations, it appeared a week ago that she and the other parties had really done it this time. They came to an agreement that could have a positive impact.

The text of the bill hasn’t been released yet, but some key details have been leaked and confirmed by Sinema:

— Anyone who seeks asylum after crossing the Mexican border will have to pass a higher-threshold screening than the current “credible fear” standard within 90 days.

— Asylum officers, rather than judges, will make those decisions, meaning more hearings can be held faster.

— People who seek asylum after crossing between ports of entry would be detained until they could go through this screening.

— People who seek asylum by crossing through ports of entry would be monitored but not detained until they pass this screening.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

— Anyone who seeks asylum but doesn’t pass the screening would be deported.

— If the level of migration between ports reaches 5,000 people per day, agents would be allowed to turn back anyone who shows up between ports of entry, even if they want to request asylum.

— It would no longer be permitted for agents to release migrants who cross between ports, giving them a Notice To Appear at court.

Trump blocks progress

What’s shocking about those details is their significance, practicality and conservative lean. It’s not a bunch of wall-building or pouring money into the Border Patrol, but it’s firming up laws in a way that could seriously reduce asylum claims.

And it doesn’t include even overdue legalization measures it ought to, in my view, like a path to citizenship for DACA recipients.

There is a chance that if this law passes, it would have a real impact, reducing the large groups of people from around the world who have crossed in places like western Pima County. It could also calm the conflict in Texas, where the governor is defying the Supreme Court and preventing federal agents from accessing a stretch of border.

But solving this problem is a risk that Donald Trump cannot take. It would rob him of his most potent election-year issue. It would also rob the urgency from the drastic measures he wants to take if elected, like reinstating a ban on entry for people from several Muslim-majority countries, and deporting millions of people as fast as possible.

So, before the bill’s text was even released, Trump came out against the bill.

“A border deal now would be another gift to the radical left Democrats,” he said in a statement. “They need it politically, but don’t care about our border.”

So, again, before the text of the bill was even released, House Speaker Mike Johnson also came out against it, meaning it has little chance to pass, if it even receives a vote, in the House.

Dismay on the right

To his credit, the Republican negotiator Lankford spoke plainly about what’s going on here. On Fox News Sunday Jan. 28, he was asked why he should give Biden a win by passing this deal on the border.

“It is interesting,” Lankford answered. “Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give you money for this. We want a change in law.’

“Now, a few months later, when we finally get to the end, they’re like, ‘Just kidding, I don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.’ “

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican, put it this way: “I’m extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill.

“If we have a bill that on net significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do.”

Immigration reform failures

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. Back in 2013, the U.S. Senate negotiated at length and in earnest, eventually passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have included pricey border enforcement measures.

The House never even voted on it due to opposition from the same political precincts that support Trump now. Every other negotiated deal, including one Sinema tried to push through in 2022 that included a legalization path for DACA recipients, has withered.

This time, though, Trump has made plain what’s really going on: They don’t want to solve these problems while the problems serve as key political leverage. They want to leave them unresolved at least long enough to get into office and really get radical.