The Tribune

With CHARLIE HARPER

ONE of the most notable moments in Donald Trump’s CNN town hall session last week involved his proposed border wall along the US southern border with Mexico. When Trump raised the wall in a lengthy critique of the Biden administration’s management of a surge of immigrants pressing for entry into the US, Trump claimed his administration had built hundreds of miles of the wall.

Moderator Kaitlan Collins, who became a household name overnight with her steadfast performance in questioning and fact-checking as Trump recited a now-familiar litany of lies, pointed out that he actually built only a small fraction of the total he claimed.

But, however much or little of the border wall was actually erected during Trump’s term in the White House, the issue of illegal immigration across America’s southern border remains one of the most significant issues facing the US as it heads toward another wild election season.

When the so-called Title 42 expired last week, many pundits predicted a tidal wave of immigrants who would overwhelm the American ability to keep them out. Title 42 of the United States Code includes numerous sections dealing with public health, social welfare, and civil rights, but in the context of immigration, the phrase “Title 42” came to be used to refer specifically to expulsions under section 265.

While COVID-19 raged, the Trump administration used a provision of Title 42 to block entry to the US for many migrants, basically using the public health crisis as justification. This practice has been continued by the Biden administration, and has effectively reduced the pressure at America’s southern border.

While things have actually improved in the past several days, no one seriously believes the migration crisis is over. But an endorsement of Trump’s wall rang out this week from an unlikely-seeming source. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, issued a strong editorial column in support of the wall.

In fact, he thinks the American southern border wall is an essential prerequisite for rationalization of US immigration policy that has clearly drifted for far too long. Friedman added his voice to a growing chorus of commentators and politicians who believe the American congress and president can no longer ignore or defer a problem likely to grow more severe with each passing month.

Friedman believes immigration reform will enable America to return to policies that had consistently enriched America’s intellectual and commercial life. He points out that the indiscriminate illegal immigration inundation at the US southern border will do much of what the Republican critics of Biden allege.

While the US may gain some new citizens who will bring with them diverse perspectives, creativity and overall value to the American population, most of the newcomers will probably add little but strain on an overtaxed social and economic network.

“If the U.S. is going to thrive in the 21st century and compete effectively with China, we need to double down on our single greatest competitive advantage -- our ability to attract the most high-aspiring migrants and the most high-IQ risk takers, who start new businesses,” Friedman wrote.

“But if more and more nation-states fracture and leave their citizens to the tender mercies of warlords and gang leaders, half the world will be able to potentially seek political asylum in America. America’s antiquated and underfunded system can no longer sift out genuine from bogus asylum claims. With nearly two million unresolved cases now in courts (up from around 100,000 a decade ago) and with the average time for an asylum determination ballooning now to more than four years and often far longer,” Friedman sees a chaotic mess only further degenerating without a coherent immigration strategy in Washington.

Friedman then cites the immigration experience of the state that is perhaps Trump’s greatest nemesis as evidence that his wall is needed.

“The best proof that a strong border can lead to a more rational debate is California,” Friedman wrote. An Obama administration Homeland Security official told the Times that ‘nearly a quarter of America’s undocumented population lives in California, and most residents of the state are fine with that. At the beginning of Trump’s presidency, California even passed a ‘sanctuary state’ law to protect otherwise law-abiding people from deportation.”

But Golden State citizens didn’t always feel that way. 30 years ago, the state was being flooded with illegal and mostly undesirable immigrants through the border between San Diego and Tijuana. Voters passed harsh measures to facilitate arrests and deportations. The issue became significant in Washington, and attention and resources were directed to stem the tide.

As the former official said, “the Clinton administration finally got control of the border between California and Mexico by strengthening the Border Patrol and constructing a 14-mile double - and, in some places, triple-layer fence along the border.

“Did this stop illegal immigration into the US? No. But the flow shifted east, to Arizona and Texas. Californians were no longer confronted with immigrants rushing at their cars or dodging traffic on major highways. The wall got illegal immigration off the nightly local news, and Californians were able to exhale and focus on other things.”

Now, decades later, officials in Arizona and Texas are desperate for remedies. The news is full of reports from the southern US border, and tales of individual tragedy will persist until Biden and his administration figure something out.

A short California-style reinforced barrier won’t be the answer to problems that stretch out for hundreds of miles to the east. But, as Trump is still criticized for his “crazy” wall, it looks increasingly like Biden’s best bet might be to complete his predecessor’s precious project.

If that’s the policy that eventually prevails, the irony will be lost on no one.

DeSantis endorsed candidates not faring well in recent races as Trump endorsed enjoy success

As Americans gradually and perhaps resentfully slide into another circus of a presidential election cycle, pundits pick over and analyze nearly every election that comes along. On Tuesday, two of these seem to have been significant.

In one of the night’s most consequential races, Daniel Cameron, the first black attorney general ever elected in Kentucky, a close political ally of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump’s endorsed candidate in the Kentucky GOP primary, easily won the GOP nomination for governor.

He clobbered two other candidates, one of whom was Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s favorite, former UN Ambassador Kelly Craft. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also endorsed her.

Craft, a former ambassador to Canada and UN ambassador under Trump, is a big GOP donor and the wife of a Kentucky coal magnate. She could be described as the choice of the cautiously growing “anyone but Trump” establishment faction of the Republican Party.

Cameron, who has appeared nationally on behalf of Trump, is a handsome, well-spoken politician whose race in November against a personally very popular Democratic incumbent will be closely watched. Cameron ran an unabashedly pro-Trump campaign and was well rewarded for it.

DeSantis and the GOP establishment took another hit in the Jacksonville mayoral race on Tuesday. Jacksonville, Florida’s largest but hardly most famous city, chose Donna Deegan, a Democratic former TV news anchor, to replace a two-term Republican incumbent who was term-limited.

Deegan, telegenic and articulate, ran on a classic reform platform and coasted to victory over an opponent endorsed two months ago by DeSantis. She will now briefly become the attractive symbol of national and local resistance to unpopular Republican policies and methods, but in fact she ran a local issues-based campaign that did not overly feature issues such as abortion and guns.

Probe of FBI actions on Trump Russia collusion concludes

With little fanfare, the four-year-long examination of FBI actions investigating campaign ties between Trump and Russia during the 2016 election closed this week. Led by conservative former US attorney John Durham, a grouchy-looking, frowning lookalike to former UN ambassador John Bolton, the probe by the hand-picked choice of former AG Bill Barr and Trump expired with a whimper.

Durham’s revelations of FBI improprieties and misconduct during the Democratic-promoted probe of Trump and Russia led by Robert Mueller had already been revealed by the agency’s inspector general, and no convictions resulted.

Neither the Mueller probe nor Durham’s response solved anything. The first was hobbled by Mueller’s cautiousness and the second revealed nothing new.

Neither investigation proved worthy of the attention and finances devoted to it.