January 11, 2019

"So you think that he's right that there is at this moment 'a crisis' at the border?" the NYT podcaster Michael Barbaro asks an Arizona sheriff.

Answer: "Michael, yes. And it's not Trump's crisis or this administration's crisis. This has been a crisis the entire 31 years I've been in this valley."

That's at about 4 minutes into a 24-minute podcast titled "What a Border Sheriff Thinks About the Wall/A sheriff in Arizona tells us how President Trump's immigration policies have played out in his county, and why his interpretation of the president's message has changed."

58 comments:

alanc709 said...

It's not a crisis, the fact-checkers said so

Jupiter said...

The podcast from the failing NYT won't load on my machine.

Kevin said...

Yes but did he use the word “humanitarian”?

Because I’ve read that’s what gets certain hearts all aflutter.

wendybar said...

Even San Diego TV stations know that CNN is a Democrat propaganda site....https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424876-san-diego-tv-station-cnn-declined-our-local-view-because-of-reports-on-wall?fbclid=IwAR3kdBfTEz79XuGWUDsHHHBeFaWotC8QecMnPLqgsgrrcAyGwMEZGlSF7JQ#.XDikoGc9WN4.facebook

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The Democrat party and the dutiful hack press control the narrative. If it's not a crisis - then it's not a crisis.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It is not a crisis. Crisis implies something significant about this moment that makes action more urgent now than it was in the past, and that waiting to take action will result in a much worse situation in the future. That is not the case with immigration. The actions we should take now are the actions we should have taken a decade or two ago, and if we don't take them now, they will still be the correct actions to take a decade or two into the future.

Just like we didn't have a healthcare crisis when the ACA was being passed, and we likely don't have a global warming crisis. Crisis is a term activists and politicians use to try to sway popular opinion. We have to do something! Here is something! Therefore, we have to do it!

We do have a bad situation regarding immigration, we should take action, and with Trump we may have a unique opportunity to take action. What we don't have is a crisis.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The border is a crisis - ongoing.

The ACA is a crisis - ongoing.

EDH said...

Notice the Democrat messaging of the NYT article in the "Background reading" link:

During his visit to McAllen, Tex., on Thursday, President Trump continued to push his narrative of a border “crisis” with a wall as its lone solution.

"Essential" or "key" element of overall strategy would be more accurate, but the Democrats want the issue framed as wall versus "border security".

gilbar said...

IiB

from the dictionary:
cri·sis
[ˈkrīsis]
NOUN
a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.
a time when a difficult or important decision must be made.
the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.

i didn't see Your def on the list: Of course, words mean what YOU Say they mean

Henry said...

Ignorance is Bliss said everything I wanted to say.

Crisis implies something significant about this moment that makes action more urgent now than it was in the past, and that waiting to take action will result in a much worse situation in the future. That is not the case with immigration.

Exactly.

So here's something to think about. If Trump uses emergency powers to redirect Army Engineer resources to building the wall, he is most likely borrowing against disaster hardening projects. Think of how bad that could go.

Unknown said...

The majority of Americans oppose a wall eh? I call bull on that.

WisRich said...

Variation of the Tree in forest scenario.

Is the border crises a crises if the MSM ignores it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

CNN really is The Party "news"


San Diego TV station: CNN declined our 'local view' because of reports on wall effectiveness

mockturtle said...

Health care--and, in particular, mental health care--is in crisis even though it is ongoing. At what point did the Black Death and other plagues become 'crises'?

Henry said...

The sheriff is incredibly impressive.

Kevin said...

What we don't have is a crisis.

Was it a crisis when everyone voted for the wall?

If yes, what changed?

If not, it seems a crisis is not required.

mockturtle said...

Great link, Dickin'! This is exemplary of how CNN and other MSM choose to misinform by omission.

Henry said...

The sheriff is a better reporter than most of the reporters. He actually reports accurately on Trump's speech.

Henry said...

"If you erect a wall and walk away from it, it's a nuisance.... You see that with a lot of existing fencing.... There are places in my county where you will never build a wall... it's not practical for topography, waterflow, land-use reasons. There's a whole bunch of reasons there will be never be a wall for the 2,000 miles of internatlonal border."

Trump should hire this guy to write his speeches.

Hey Skipper said...

David Leonhardt, from todays NYT Op-Ed email:

"“To those who say, ‘Trump should give DACA, Pelosi should do the wall,’ we must say a clear, ‘No.’” Reverend William Barber tweeted yesterday, referring to the policy that would make Dreamers legal. “The wall isn’t negotiable b/c it’s based on lies, racism & white nationalism.”"

Two Papers In One!

alanc709 said...

Democrats idea of border security is to hire more people and then refuse to send them to the actual border to enforce anything.

Chuck said...

So it's been the same way for 31 years, but now Trump thinks that he can invoke powers pursuant to "a period of national emergency" under the National Emergencies Act?

As Althouse might say, "Um..."

Sebastian said...

If Americans want control over immigration and the future of the culture, there is a crisis; if not, there isn't.

So far, it's a close-run thing.

A few hundred bodies in the desert and a steady supply of hard drugs are the least of it.

Rick said...

Just like we didn't have a healthcare crisis when the ACA was being passed,...global warming

Let's include the campus rape hysteria. Campuses have less rape and sexual assault than non-campus venues, plus the rates have been dropping for decades (as they have for all violent crime). Yet "fact checkers" do not give Pinocchios to left wingers who use the word epidemic to justify their demands we rewrite the constitution and develop an entirely knew adjudication process staffed with ideological extremists who invent whatever standard is necessary to reach their desired conclusion.

It's revealing watching these leftists foam at the mouth that others dare use their tactics. It's not enough to claim you didn't support that movement. Here you're actively attacking the tactic but only role supposedly moderate left wingers have taken on campus is attacking the movement's critics.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Mock-Turtle

The link is on top, right, @ Drudge.

Rick said...

Crisis implies something significant about this moment that makes action more urgent now than it was in the past, and that waiting to take action will result in a much worse situation in the future. That is not the case with immigration.

It is true with immigration, but the crisis is political caused by the Dems insistence on an Amnesty. If they weren't trying to create new voters the status quo likely would have remained acceptable.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

gilbar said...

i didn't see Your def on the list...

That might be because I didn't give a definition. I talked about the implications of the word. If you want me to deal with the definition you gave, fine. The third definition clearly supports my view, since a turning point implies a brief period. Likewise, with the second definition, saying a decision must be made clearly does not apply, since we have been in the same situation for decades, and have not made any decisions.

So the only possibility is the first definition. Is this a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger? No, it is not. It is a time of diffuse difficulty, trouble, and danger. Should we make changes to reduce that difficulty, trouble, and danger? Sure. Absolutely. Just as we should have last year. And the year before. And the year before that. And the year before that. And the year before that. And the year before that. And the year before that.

steve uhr said...

So if the plan is to declare a national emergency in lieu of legislation, what is the rationale for continuing the shutdown?

Darrell said...

Chuck can list all the Caravans of Illegals over the last 31 years.
What's different now?
Besides assholes like you not being in charge of the Republican Party.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

steve uhr said...

So if the plan is to declare a national emergency in lieu of legislation, what is the rationale for continuing the shutdown?

That would be a fine question to ask Trump if he vetos an appropriations bill that makes it to his desk. On the other hand, Republicans in Congress have a job that involves passing an appropriations bill that is in the best interest of the country. If they believe that including funding for a wall is in the best interest of the country, then they should continue working to get that into the appropriations bill.

Mike said...

Both parties have been saying it's a crisis for over 30 years. That's why we have Bill Clinton on tape, and Obama, and Bush, who can be virtually summoned to support Trump's argument now. They beat into our heads the importance of "border security" right up until Trump did something about it. I don't know why our progressive fellow citizens assume such memory loss on a wholesale scale, but they are the ones now whistling past the graveyard. Trump disappointed me on Monday night by NOT running the "build the wall!" compilation video I have seen everywhere else.

Here's a link to a related video in which the hosts reads scathing quotes about illegal immigrants. The students all ritually denounce Trump, like good little Cultural Revolutionaries would, and are then shocked to learn that all the quotes the hate are from people they support, Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc. THAT is what Trump needs to do on a national scale. Where is the modern Atwater who can lead these herd-of-cats Republican party?

rehajm said...

It is a time of diffuse difficulty, trouble, and danger.

I'm reminded of how economic crises occur, which is slowly, then all at once.

Unknown said...

Are a majority of Americans really opposed to building a border wall?

MountainMan said...

"Are a majority of Americans really opposed to building a border wall?"

This is from last January but not sure if the results would still hold now. Published in Washington Times, 1/23/18:

"A wide-reaching new poll conducted by Harvard University reveals that majorities of U.S. voters — including Democrats — appear to agree with many of President Trump’s most basic beliefs about immigration.

The findings reveal, for example, that eight out of 10 of all U.S. voters — 79 percent — say the U.S. needs secure borders; 93 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats agree with that.

Another 79 percent of voters overall say immigration priorities should be granted on a person’s “ability to contribute to America”; 87 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of independents and 72 percent of Democrats agree.

Meanwhile, 68 percent overall oppose a lottery-based immigration system which is meant to ensure “greater diversity: in the U.S.; 78 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of independents and 62 percent of Democrats agree.

In addition, 61 percent overall say U.S. border security is inadequate; 84 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree.

Another 54 percent overall support building a combination physical and electronic barrier between the U.S. and Mexico; 85 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of independents and 30 percent of Democrats agree."

steve uhr said...

Ignorance is Bliss --- How long should we wait for legislation to reach Trump's desk that he will veto? Do you really think McConnell will allow the senate to vote on legislation that the president will veto?

Definition of emergency -- a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring IMMEDIATE action.

eric said...


Blogger steve uhr said...
So if the plan is to declare a national emergency in lieu of legislation, what is the rationale for continuing the shutdown?

1/11/19, 9:11 AM


History?

If Trump declares a national emergency and they start building a wall, great! Shutdown over.

Does anyone really believe that'll happen?

Let's suppose a more realistic course of action.

Emergency declared.
Democrats go to friendly judge in Hawaii.
An order is issued to keep Trump from building the wall.
Shutdown Continues.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

How long should we wait for legislation to reach Trump's desk that he will veto?

Who is suggesting we wait? I think Congress should pass the appropriations bill that they think is best for the American people.

Do you really think McConnell will allow the senate to vote on legislation that the president will veto?

Quite likely not. But we don't know that Trump would veto it. Nor do we know that Trump will declare an emergency if he does not get the funding he wants. Nor do we know how the courts will rule on such a declaration. So it makes sense for the Republicans in the House and Senate to continue working to get funding into the appropriations bill, if they believe the wall to be in the country's best interest.

eric said...

Chuck said...
So it's been the same way for 31 years, but now Trump thinks that he can invoke powers pursuant to "a period of national emergency" under the National Emergencies Act?

As Althouse might say, "Um..."

1/11/19, 8:49 AM


Prior national emergencies.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story%3fid=60294693

But this time it's Trump so it's different!

Drago said...

LLR Chuck does not like it when republicans make the dems live by their own rules.

LLR Chuck is always on the lookout for ways to enshrine permanent democrat policy wins.

LLR Chuck is very very helpful to his dem allies in that way.

And the more radical advantage to the dems the better as far as LLR Chuck is concerned.

And the fact that Chuck's hero Acosta looked like a complete idiot is itself enough to send LLR Chuck back into therapy.

LOL

narayanan said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said... The Democrat party and the dutiful hack press control the narrative. If it's not a crisis - then it's not a crisis.

Democrats still don't want to let Trump crying CRISIS when it's a "non-crisis" go to waste.

Martin said...

Barbaro would never say it and probably would deny it, but he sounds like he really thinks that Trump created the whole immigration problem by calling for a "wall," and there was no problem before the 2016 campaign.

Barbaro makes a point at the start that a majority are NOT in favor of "a wall." The polling says that is true, but he does not mention that a majority also favor "securing the border." The obvious conclusion is that some of the majority who want a secure border are skeptical that a 1900+ mile wall is the way to do it. By emphasizing skepticism about "a wall" but ignoring the majority in favor of "border security", Barbaro is, as usual for the NYT, dishonest. Hell, let's not mince words--he is a liar.

I also think Sheriff Napier is being very naive (or just political) in saying that there is a bipartisan consensus in favor of securing the border, and we just have to get past the word "wall". This has been a problem for decades and if there ever was such a consensus the problem would have been solved or greatly ameliorated.

The fact is (a) many businesses want cheap, illegal (and therefore exploitable) workers, (b) many well-to-do people want cheap household help, (c) many Democrats really do look at changing the electorate in their favor, and (d) many influential people on the left really think the US is an illegitimate nation and must repay un-repayable debts to the rest of the world and this is a place to start. Maybe Democrats Napier knows in Pima County, AZ favor border security, but nationally, not so much.

This is NOT a matter of, "Let's just understand each other and work it out--Kumbaya." I wish it was. But there are fundamental, even existential differences that have been brewing since at least the 1965 immigration changes but the pre-history goes back much further, and THAT is why we are at the present impasse.

The only thing that has changed is that for the first time there is someone in a position of power who sincerely wants to do something about it rather than do nothing and pretend to have done something in order to fool the rubes. (George W. Bush, Marco Rubio, and the late unlamented John McCain, I'm looking at you.) That has not been the case since maybe the 1924 immigration act.

walter said...

"The students all ritually denounce Trump, like good little Cultural Revolutionaries would, and are then shocked to learn that all the quotes the hate are from people they support, Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc. THAT is what Trump needs to do on a national scale. Where is the modern Atwater who can lead these herd-of-cats Republican party?"

Yep. Maybe a follow up address to the nation where Trump greets viewers, then exits frame and solely plays the quotes.

Pillage Idiot said...

LLR Chuck to Abraham Lincoln, "So we have had slavery for 150 years and you think it is a crisis now?"

iowan2 said...

If Trump had the power, he would force the Senate to vote on the bill from the House. He would force all of the Senators on record. If it gets the 60 votes, he vetoes. Then the rest of the Republican defections join the Democrats to override the veto. The President can only do what is constitutionally within his power. Not succeeding in border security will be rightly laid at the feet of legislatures, where the constitution places it.

Michael McNeil said...

It's interesting to see what kind of wall the Israelis consider adequate for their national security. Wikipedia describes the then-new Israeli Wall which put an end to spate of many dozens of suicide bombings within Israel constituting the so-called Palestinian “Second Intifada” (quoting…):

About 90–95% of the barrier will be constructed as a “multi-layered fence system” with the IDF's preferred design having three fences, pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire on the two outer fences, a lighter-weight fence with intrusion detection equipment in the middle, an anti-vehicle ditch, patrol roads on both sides, and a smooth strip of sand for “intrusion tracking.”

The barrier contains an on-average 60-metre (200 ft) wide exclusion area. The width of some sections is larger (up to 100 metres (330 ft) due to topographic conditions. The width of some sections (about 6% of the barrier) is 3 metres (9.8 ft) where the barrier is constructed as a concrete wall up to 8 metres (26 ft) high. These sections are narrower, require less land, and provide more protection against snipers. Wall construction is more common in urban settings, e.g., Qalqilyah and Jerusalem, and in areas where people have been killed by snipers, e.g., the Trans-Israel Highway.

(/unQuote)

Hey Skipper said...

Chuck:

When does a leaking toilet become a crisis? When there is a small stain on the ceiling in the room below, or when 25 square feet of sheetrock come crashing down?

By emphasizing skepticism about "a wall" but ignoring the majority in favor of "border security", Barbaro is, as usual for the NYT, dishonest. Hell, let's not mince words--he is a liar.

Even by NYT standards, Barbaro's questioning was grotesquely biased. What is even more astonishing is that he no doubt thought himself completely objective.

Skeptical Voter said...

Let the ninnies quibble over whether a "crisis" exists. What we have here is a situation--that has gone on in one way or another for maybe 80 years. It's gotten exponentially worse in the last 50 years or so. Some of my relatives live in the southern tier counties of Arizona. I lived in San Diego for a long time. There's been a lot of crime involving illegals crossing the border. Some of it is committed by the illegals--some of the crimes--rape, kidnapping, abandoning folks to die in the desert have been committed against them.


Both parties have paid lip service to border security--and either done nothing, or not enough. The situation persists--and needs to be fixed.


Ignorance is Bliss said...

Skeptical Voter said...

Let the ninnies quibble over whether a "crisis" exists.

Thank you

Yancey Ward said...

As I wrote yesterday- the Democrats are not interested one little bit in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico and points further south. Their intention all along was to grant every illegal resident citizenship- those here now and those who arrive in the future. This is simple politics- the Democrats know they will get a huge net increase in electoral support- nothing else matters. All of their previous lip service to border security was a lie to entice Republicans into passing (Republican Senators) and signing (George W. Bush) amnesty for illegal residents. It is electoral suicide for Democrats to pass amnesty on their own, which is why the Democrats didn't pass it in 2009-2011 when they could have done so easily.

There is no negotiating space here. Trump either has to force the Senate Republicans and House Republicans to override his veto and declare the emergency action (see Iowan2 above), or he has to break the Democrats against the wall and get his funding. Trump can't lose unless he gives up.

I think the Republican leadership in the Senate will stab him in the back after playing their kabuki roles trying to fool the voters, but I am not sure a veto can be overridden in the House.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck to Abraham Lincoln: Why cant you just appoint a commission to identify slavery best practices and options for republican compromise (Failure Theatre) and eventual capitulation.

Ye olde goode republicans at His Former Majesties Weekly Standard have offered a detail plan of studied inaction to help facilitate said surrender to the Democrats....

Jeff said...

I listened to most of the podcast, but eventually got tired of Barbaro's unceasing attempts to put words in the sheriff's mouth. The sheriff pointed out again and again that what the Democrats are attacking is a caricature of Trump's proposal, not the proposal itself. The sheriff says that he himself was critical of Trump's rhetoric a couple of years ago, but that the President has clearly listened to experts and crafted proposals that the sheriff supports. It's worth pointing out that this sheriff really is an expert on the border problems, he's been dealing with it for over 30 years in the county that has the longest border with Mexico of any county.

So the Democrats should lose this one, and probably will. If they were smart (but then they wouldn't be Democrats) they would find a way to finesse this to their advantage. Trump has said on several occasions that he would like to see the legal immigration system geared more to skilled and educated immigrants, and less welcoming to family chain migrants, who tend to be less skilled and less educated. The Democrats believe that some of Trump's supporters are out-and-out racists who want not only an end to illegal immigration, but also a sharp reduction in legal immigration, at least from the "shithole" countries. So Pelosi and Schumer should propose this deal: An end to the shutdown, funding for Trump's border security proposals, but coupled with an increase in legal immigration, with all of the increase coming from skilled immigrants.

Trump supporters usually say they don't oppose legal immigrants, only illegal ones. By proposing to sharply reduce illegal entries via border security measures (including walls where appropriate) but simultaneously increasing skilled legal immigration, the Democrats put Trump in a bind. If Trump goes for the deal and his base really is as racist as the Democrats think it is, the base doesn't turn out in 2020 and Trumps falls. If he doesn't go for the deal, he looks like he's just anti-immigrant, and that will also cost him in 2020. Either way, the Democrats get to pose as the pro-legal-immigrant party, and they can count on at least some Trump supporters to loudly voice their opposition in ways that can be portrayed as anti-immigrant and even racist.

The down side for the Democrats is that they don't get to break Trump over the wall the way that Bush Sr. was broken when he reneged on his "Read my lips, no new taxes!" pledge. But it should be clear by now even to the Democrats that Trump is not as politically naive as Bush was, so they should take what they can get and try to turn it to their advantage.

Seeing Red said...

but simultaneously increasing skilled legal immigration,

There’s a possibility the rich tech companies won’t come out looking good if HB1 visas come up.

American can do more of those jobs..

With a restructure, possibly.

Seeing Red said...

With a restructure of that visa program.

narciso said...

Not a crisis:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/20855/mexican-cartel-member-tied-massacre-hundreds-found-ryan-saavedra

Gk1 said...

This is funny to watch as Trump plug holes in areas where the shut down is noticeable like food stamps and welfare payouts while watching democrats shit their pants as they hope Trump up and quits. They really don't have any sort of strategy that I can see because republican presidents usually fold within the first few hours of a shutdown.

Jim at said...

So if the plan is to declare a national emergency in lieu of legislation, what is the rationale for continuing the shutdown?

Good question.

Ask Nancy and Chuck.

Big Mike said...

Mexican federal police found four burnt-out trucks, a sedan and the bodies, most of them charred, in a rural community near the town of Miguel Aleman, authorities told CNN. The grisly scene appeared to be the result of a battle between rival gangs ...

But nearby McAllen is "perfectly safe" and doesn't need the fence it has. Right.

Big Mike said...

Twenty bodies. Not much by Mexican gang war standards, but more murdered people than we here in the US want to see.

Most of us here in the US, anyway. Acosta would love to report on a mass murder, just as soon as he can blame it on Trump.