First of all, when the New York Times claims that Kamala Harris has a “nuanced” record when it comes to the border issues, you have to take a moment to consider their claim. Should you hand the reporters responsible for the article a copy of Webster’s Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary? Or maybe the definition of nuanced changed in the last four years from “having or characterized by subtle and often appealingly complex qualities, aspects, or distinctions” to “made up out of thin air”. Of course, this is the Times, so the smokescreen probably shouldn’t surprise anyone. But what’s the truth? has she been as bad as Donald Trump alleges or have her actions been nuanced and more successful than even members of her own party expected?

This story goes back to the dark days of the beginning of the Biden Administration. The border crisis was just one of the many challenges facing the country. Biden, in his infinite wisdom (okay, finite wisdom, but that’s another post), announced his decision to put Harris in charge of finding solutions to the issue. According to the BBC, she was put “in charge of controlling migration” at the border. No, he didn’t name her as the “border czar”, which is a sticking point in the NYT article. But he still handed her the problem and told her to find a solution.

She’s the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle [Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador], and the countries that are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks – stemming the migration to our southern border”.

Talk about a slap in the face to every Central and South American diplomat and every expert in immigration issues that statement represent. According to Biden and Harris at the time, getting to the bottom of the causes for immigration to the US and helping the countries overcome those causes would help ease the border crisis. On paper it might have looked good but the reality was far different.

Within several months, it because clear the Administration’s policy was to throw billions at these countries without actually understanding the issues. Worse, they made little to no attempt to understand the issues the crisis caused for those living on the US side of the border. Soaring crime rates, economic impact, and more were all ignored by Harris and by the rest of the Biden Administration as they continued to “work” with Mexico and the Northern Triangle.

A crisis that continues to this day.

But according to the NYT article, we have to look past all that to the more nuanced approach Harris took to the issue.

Rather than develop ways to turn away or detain migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, Ms. Harris’s work included encouraging a Japan-based auto parts plant, Yazaki, to build a $10 million plant in a western Guatemalan region that sees high rates of migration and pushing a Swiss-based coffee company to increase procurement by more than $100 million in a region rich with coffee beans.

Let’s give her a hand. How long will it take to build the plant? What steps are being put in place to make sure it becomes profitable so Yazaki wants to keep it there? And that Swiss investment? Cool, as long as nothing happens to the coffee crops. Also, when is that procurement to take place? Has it already happened and, if so, what was the impact it had on the number of those living there fleeing north?

Funny, isn’t it, how we never see that kind of information from those telling us what a good job–sorry, nuanced job–Harris has done.

Also, what are we supposed to do with all those trying to enter the US illegally between now and when all these economic steps come to fruition? Notice how that is also something her supporters do their best not to answer.

The NYT article discusses at length the steps Harris took to bring the US, Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries into agreement on economic issues. Yes, if those steps work, they might impact the number of immigrants seeking to enter the country illegally. However, there are several glaring omissions from the article as well. As Rep. Henry Cuellar noted, you can’t look at the immigration issue in a vacuum. You have to look at both the economic and social reasons behind it but you also have to look at the border itself. Something neither Harris nor Biden did.

Then you have the elephant in the room: the cartels. No amount of economic aid is going to help if the cartels aren’t dealt with one way or another. Do you pay them off–and keep paying them off until the end of time–or do you deal with then in a more permanent manner? Before you answer, consider how either option will impact the US. Do we have the resources to keep paying them off to turn a blind eye to new businesses, etc? Can we justify sending troops in–assuming we were asked for assistance–to deal with them and how would the public react to such action?

And we have crickets from Harris and the current Administration on the issue.

So, to answer some counterclaims by the Harris supporters. No, Biden didn’t name her as his Border Czar. Big whoop. No one named the head of the DEA as the Drug Czar and more than one in the role has held that nickname. Get over it.

Now listen to what Harris had to say about the border issue this very week. She walked underground tunnels connecting Mexico and California. She prosecuted those who came over illegally. She was tough on those breaking the law. Too bad she hasn’t followed that same policy the last three plus years.

As a Texan, I want someone who claims to have walked the walk on controlling illegal immigration to have at least spent time in the border states, talking not only with law enforcement but with the men and women, with the families, who have been impacted by those illegally entering the country. Only then can a politician claim to have walked the walk and talked the talk.

Featured image, Kamala Harris caricature, created by DonkeyHotey. Creative Commons 2.0 license.