I agree with President Trump that certain undesirables should not be allowed entry into the USA. The drug cartel/dealers, human traffickers, gang bangers, and terrorists are not welcome and should be turned back to Central America. We do not need such in the land. Since the church is growing in Latin American countries, maybe the asylum seekers/refugees can go there for help.
The border wall is NIMBYism on a continental scale, and this interview makes that plain as day. The Sheriff believes himself to be a compassionate man, but he doesn't want to end suffering. He isn't proposing increases in foreign aid or an end to American trade policies that suppress economic growth in the developing world. He doesn't believe himself to be His Brothers' Keeper. He's not a Good Samaritan. Like his cohort, he just doesn't want to have to see, hear, or smell the suffering. He wants the deniability that comes with keeping the suffering at a distance.
3
Sheriff Mark Napier is a breath of fresh air. His explanation of the real life tragedies @ our southern border and the first-hand knowledge over decades of the real humanitarian crisis happening, should be dominating the news coverage. This “wall” talk is ridiculous. The stare-down with the President and Pelosi is shameful.
2
He definitely can’t see mountains in Mexico from his office. Yes, Pima county has some of the border territory but it’s all desert hills. I personally wouldn’t consider him a Sheriff of the border. Santa Cruz county is closer to the border and has a port of entry.
2
@Suzette His territory covers a huge area of the border.
That was a shameful performance by Mark Napier, who consistently spoke out of both sides of his mouth in an effort to avoid criticizing Donald Trump. Napier wants to pretend that "both sides" are politicizing this issue, when really, everyone just wants a more secure border.
This isn't true.
Trump campaigned on the idea of building a wall. Now he's afraid if he doesn't get one built, his supporters will turn against him in 2020. THAT's how this issue has been "politicized," and Napier is at least smart enough to know this, but he will never say it out loud out of fear of further blowback from Republicans. That's cowardly, plain and simple.
I know Michael Barbaro tried to pin him down, but not hard enough, and not on this specific point, which is the core reason "both sides" can't reach a "compromise."
Trump promised a wall and he is afraid of losing his re-election bid if he doesn't look like he tried as hard as he could to get one.
That's what this whole thing is about, and everyone involved at the senior level, knows it.
4
You are entirely one sided on this. The majority of Americans want border security. Dems want open borders and are looking for ways to pretend they care about the border. Trump wants a wall and hard security.
You are right that Trump needs the wall for his constituents, but you neglect that Dems must oppose it for there’s. It divides both lines and neither side has an out to save face in this standoff.
@Center of the Road
There is NO "crisis" at the border, apart from the humanitarian crisis of desperate people trying to improve their lives and the lives of their families--and Trump has deliberately made that crisis much worse. Illegal crossings at the border are actually DOWN from where they were before, not worse.
The real crisis for Trump remains the fact that he promised a wall as a kind of campaign gimmick, and many of his supporters are dumb enough to believe that a wall will actually lesson immigration, when experts know full well a wall is only a symbolic attempt at a solution. Trump constantly talks about drug smuggling, counting on the fact that his supporters are too ignorant to know that the vast majority of drugs are smuggled through LEGAL points of entry, which a wall would do nothing to hinder.
Finally, your claim that "Dems want open borders" is ridiculous. There may be SOME in the Democratic party who feel this way, but NO ONE in leadership does, and the party has never advocated any such platform.
It's hilarious that you would accuse me of being "one sided," while you parrot GOP talking points, word for word.
This sheriff did present himself well and patiently presented another perspective. However, he should not have to (try to) translate what Trump is saying. I take issue with the multiple times he spoke of what he thinks Trump means. I’m not sure even Trump knows what he means!!! I think this sheriff bent over too far trying to ‘explain’ Trumps thinking and defending it.
2
I was sorry to hear my sheriff avoid talking about why the "other than Mexicans" leave their homes. For Central Americans, it's not just about "a better life." It's often a matter of life and death.
What if we spent the detention and proposed wall money to bolster the region we helped to destabilize to form a long-lasting solution.
6
@Marge Our Sheriff is spot-on with how he sees and handles theses things. and what on earth are you talking about when you say “A region we helped destabilize”? It is those countries own political instability and corruption, to name only a few things, that is to blame. We are not a place for everybody in the world to run to that cannot get their own act together. I believe we have a duty to internationally enforce human rights, but thise affected also need to take responsibility. and there is a process, if they want to come here I need to start that process legally. I personally have assisted with five OTM’s In there desire to come to the US and so far one has made it legally and the rest are pending. And none of them have died, and raped, abused, or suffered in the process.
I had to stop what I was doing when this interview started because I was transfixed by Sheriff Napier's intelligence, wisdom, and compassion. Until 2 weeks ago I wasn't for the wall but the bitter acrimony changed me to support it. Napier is apolitical while deftly and firmly dodging several attempts by the interviewer to lead him down a path. I have to wonder if Napier had been in the room with Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer, whether they could have walked out with a deal. I hope Napier enters politics when he gets a bellyful of sheriffing.
3
Is the Sheriff running for higher office? He came across as a glibe, practiced politician.
2
The humble border sheriff on the program today certainly had the talking points down. "Whether it's 6 or 6,000" indeed; you could have been interviewing Sarah Huckabee. And dropping in that Democrats in the past voted for a wall (in a deal nixed by the Feedom Caucus and Stephen Miller). And the clairvoyant public servant somehow knew what the President is really trying to say about border security -- no, it's not a wall, it's, it's... Somehow this does not instil confidence, either in the President's intentions or the Daily's reporting.
2
This was an interesting interview and demonstrated to me that many people hear only what they want to hear. The Sheriff has been concerned for years about the humanitarian toll on migrants as they attempt to escape poverty, or worse, in their home country. He sees their bones in the gulches and believes they would have had a better fate if they had never left their country. When he hears Trump say we have a humanitarian crisis, he hears that Trump too must be concerned about the misery and suffering of these migrants. The fact that Trump has repeatedly called these people rapists, drug smugglers, and murderers, and has tear-gassed and kidnapped their children in no way suggests any sympathy for their plight. The Sheriff also has the notion that when Trump says he wants a wall, he really means he is open to all manner of border security, a physical barrier being one of many options. For two plus years we have heard Trump chant "Build the Wall!" and talk about how it will be a beautiful concrete and/or steel structure, paid for by Mexico. Look at the prototypes available in San Diego. The Democrats have offered to discuss all options if Trump will reopen the government, but Trump says no, first my wall. Michael, you questioned the Sheriff's beliefs in a very professional way. Its always a challenging discussion when people hear only what they want to hear, and believe only what they want to believe. I think we are all guilty of that at times.
3
This was the single most intelligent debate on this issue I have heard in weeks. Instead of the futile circus in Washington about "The Wall", the discussion needs to shift towards erecting barriers where barriers make sense. If only Trump & Pelosi would listen to that Sheriff....
3
Another great cast with great dialogue. However, I was honestly unimpressed with MB’s continual line of questing that attacks the President and attempts to place the stalemate solely on him. Expect better from NYT.
The sherif did a great job sticking to the issue and focusing on what needed to be done to fix the problem.
2
The Sherriff was clear and articulate – good interview. Now I believe there is a humanitarian crisis on our Southern border. Women and children are trying to get across; the elements and circumstances endanger their lives. This event is not unlike what is happening in Europe where refugees from Syria are trying to escape a civil war. The root causes are civil strife and low economic and educational opportunities in the Central and South Americas. Support the president to strengthen boarder security (in certain places a Wall) and present a strategy for more development and trade to Central and South America. For the shutdown, blame both sides. Just give a few billion for a wall – take 5 billion from the 700 billion-defense allotment. Or ask people to donate $25 dollars.
1
Allison, in Kentucky, posted this comment on Jan. 12. "If someone finds themselves in a situation that is so bad that walking hundreds of miles through a desert is worth it, I'm not sure a wall or any other prevention measures are going to change their minds. Does it make more sense to figure out if we can make the conditions where they come from more tolerable?"
A trusted colleague at Arizona State University was in the Peace Corps in Honduras, from 2006 to 2008. Last month, she wrote me, in response to my question about how to perceive the migrants, that they have NO OPTIONS! They encounter terrible CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE!
She wrote, "I left the country [Honduras] in late 2008. In 2009 there was a big military coup after which Honduras “achieved” the ranking as the country with the highest per capita murder rate in the world. Needless to say, Peace Corps pulled out of the entire Central American region at that time, which was a sad loss of progress for those of us who volunteered there and still have many host country national friends who remain there. It is devastating to see how the US has both undermined their democracy over the years and also refuses to help their people who are at the mercy of more corruption and violence than we can even imagine. We regard them like rats instead of desperate people and families who have no options. It hurts my heart to think of how terribly this has unfolded."
4
It's scary to see that thoughtful, well-meaning people like this sheriff can be duped by Trump's diversion tactics. Wasn't it rather obvious that the punchline of Trump's oval office address would be his demand for the wall, and that the reason for first pointing out real humanitarian issues was to mislead listeners into thinking that the wall was a necessary component of the solution? The entire address was nothing more than pointing a finger at democrats on national television, using the oval office as a backdrop.
The fact that he mentioned a wall only a few times indicates the degree his writing team thought it necessary to conceal the point amid real crises and awful stories meant to distract the listener. In any case, even if you could decipher Trump's rambling messages from a transcript, you would only be seeing half of what he is conveying; the other half comes from his absurd facial expressions, temperament, and posturing, which are important to interpreting his and any person's message (which is why it's so easy to misinterpret emails and why we have emoji's for expressing ourselves in texts).
1
@Lynx.
It seems as though you have difficulty seeing the point so of views of others. Your own views cause you to immediately shut down, unable to even consider what the sheriff lays out. You seem to be looking for any excuse to not challenge your own views - it’s a result of a cognitive dissonance.
1
Thanks to the Sheriff for having an open discussion about his thoughts on the current and historical situation he's faced on his part of the border.
I'd be interested to know what his persective was of the legislation the Democrats passed according to Speaker Pelosi's response to President Trump's Border Address last week. Copying from an NPR transcript, she said the following: "The fact is: On the very first day of this Congress, House Democrats passed Senate Republican legislation to re-open government and fund smart, effective border security solutions."
I can't keep up with the news cycle to know if there's any nuance to her statement, but does the Sheriff know the content of that legislation? And does he think it's enough? Besides that, is the crisis now so immediate that holding the government hostage over funding a border wall is a responsible approach to addressing this crisis? I don't see how these two things can be separated in a proper discussion at the moment given how they've been inextricably linked together.
Otherwise, my issue with apparently supporting 45 now is that, while the situation on the border may accurately be described as a crisis, and even though President Trump may have struck a more conciliatory tone in one address, his platform is still and has always been explicitly and implicitly racist. A few polite words do not change this, and ignoring historical fact is turning a blind eye to, or implicitly condoning, unacceptable behavior.
1
I was impressed by this week’s episode. I very much appreciate the Sheriff Napier’s well-spoken and intelligent position. I agree with other commenters that I think there could’ve been more pushback and some time spent addressing the efforts by House Democrats to separate the issues of border security from the rest of the government shutdown; BUT in lieu of getting everything I’d want, I would rather welcome the open discourse and the objective position of a less liberal perspective than only getting one-sided stories. I read the summary and almost didn’t listen to it, expecting to hear from an unintelligible, inarticulate, die-hard Trump supporter with empty arguments. I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong and chastised myself for becoming so judgmental. Keep pushing. Keep us honest. Keep us thinking. Keep creating the opportunities for civil discourse. Keep it up.
1
It is good to hear voices from the other side, but it is frustrating when their misstatements aren't challenged.
The sheriff repeatedly said that Trump is not asking for just a wall, but a solution that includes technology and manpower. But Trump has said repeatedly in the past few days that he wants only a physical wall, and dismissed the use of technology.
But it is interesting to know how people can hear Trump say something specific, but then reinterpret to be what they wanted to hear.
It helps explain why his level of support has not gone down.
5
@Dennis yeah, the R's messaging is trying to de-emphasize the wall because they no it's not popular. But all in all, sinking more funding into border security WITHOUT looking at the drivers of migration...is a losing strategy.
I really appreciate that the Sheriff is very concerned about the immigrants and the horrors they have suffered and how he explains that this suffering is the humanitarian crisis that is happening. But I wish Michael had asked him how preventing them from entering the country would alleviate that suffering. I'm not arguing whether they should be allowed in or not. That's not relevant to my specific question, but I genuinely want to understand how preventing them from entering prevents the humanitarian crisis he described. If someone finds themselves in a situation that is so bad that walking hundreds of miles through a desert is worth it, I'm not sure a wall or any other prevention measures are going to change their minds. Does it make more sense to figure out if we can make the conditions where they come from more tolerable? Of course I have no idea how we'd do that.
2
@Allison. YES, make the conditions where they come from more tolerable.
Here are insights from two people who have direct experience with migrants.
1) A resident of Nogales, Arizona, a border town. She wrote yesterday, "As far as any perceived crisis, I agree with the [Pima County] sheriff that it pertains to the humanitarian crisis of the plight of the migrants.
The solution is not to build a wall, but to invest in NGO's that support education and small businesses in Central America. Our policies contributed to the instability there. If you broke it, fix it. If we were investing significantly in NGO's there, fewer people would be driven to leave their homes and families to undertake a dangerous and daunting trek across Mexico to live in the shadows in the United States."
1
@Allison
Migrants make the dangerous arduous journey because they are under the impression that the consequece if that trek is that they will be able to enter the US and start a new, better life, documented or not. And in the past this was not untrue. If a clear message is sent that they will not be allowed to enter the US or that they will be sent back to their home country, I bet less will make the trek.
I am not disagreeing that the best solution is to solve the problem at the root - the poverty and violence and corruption in their home countries. But one has got to be realistic in what the US can do. And we have already learnt that nation building is not an easy task.
1
Listening to this interview, a second time, and the Sheriff's perspective, I can't help but to distrust his position. The President has only ever talked of a "wall". Mr. Napier seems to be playing the role of translator (if the President of the USA hopes to secure the border with something other than a wall, it is incumbent upon him to say as much). His confidence in the President's motivations are not supported by the President's statements or actions.
I suspect the Sheriff has an agenda more closely aligned with Republican politics than a genuine compassion for those who choose to cross the border in pursuit of life liberty and happiness. Mr. Napier's equivocation around the criminal inclinations of immigrants can only lead one to believe he's got ulterior motives. In number and percentage, undocumented immigrants are far and away less likely to commit a crime of any sort than American born citizens. That the Sheriff danced around this fact calls into question his motives. Certainly he has a vocabulary that swoons but that doesn't make a border wall the least bit more effective or moral.
1
I thought this was a great podcast. It was a different view than what I’m used to, and from someone who works and lives in that area. It’s easy to pass judgement when your 1800 miles away. I can relate to him, and his argument 100%. And I’m absolutely no fan of 45. He’s right, we do need better and smarter border security as well as better immigration laws. There’s a lot of work to be done at the border, and one wall doesn’t make it all better.
2
While I don't agree with all he said, and I think he puts too much faith in what Trump says at any given moment, it was refreshing to listen to a thoughtful and intellectually honest argument from Sheriff Mark Napier. Kudos to him and much respect.
3
@BoulderBill Which exact points do you disagree with here?
The Daily. Great as always. Interestingly the sheriff was clear that he did not know what the President's $5Bn. plan for the border was. The President has a great talent to speak with great confidence and vaguely enough so that one fills the gap with one's own assumptions and wishes. It seems that the sheriff, although smart, thoughtful and articulate had fallen into that trap. Sometimes it helps save one's own sanity.
3
Please don't let advocates for border security get away with the notion that we have not worked to improve security along the southern border. The budgets for DHS and associated agencies have ballooned since 1990. We spent at least $100 billion on border security over the last five years and doubled the number of border patrol agents over the last seven years. Spending on border security has been bipartisan and lavish.
In comparison we have done precious little to combat opiate-related deaths across the nation. Nor have we invested significant resources to deal with the rise in suicides. I have trouble believing that after all this investment the southern border remains a big crisis that justifies closing down the government.
Are there really hundreds of miles where a physical border would be the best solution but it hasn't been built or funded? Can this Sheriff point to a single mile on his own border where we need to build a wall and haven't done so?
3
@Stanwood Yes, we can point to areas that do not have a wall; How on earth do you think the people the sheriff is talking about her getting into our county? Better yet, why don’t you do the research instead of throwing up blank statements that allude to untruths for your own personal agenda; can you show that every single mile has a wall?
This is the third year of Trump's presidency, two of which there was a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Yet, nothing about an immigration policy came out of that two-year period except the mantra that he wants to close the borders, limit visas, and turn away all asylum seekers along with Dreamers. The 'metaphor' of the Wall is just that. There's also more disreputable talk about de-naturalizing citizens and more actions separate respectable families already here with deportation to the country of descent. Now he says that he wants the wall first and later talk about immigration policy. It sounds like the Wall is his immigration policy and isn't addressing the process to come to this country, work, and become a citizen.
This guy is good but Democrats should not fall for his rhetoric. Trump is the only one here playing a political game and democrats are right to stand firm against him. They must stay the course for the sake of sanity. Trump, on the other hand, must say loud and clear he abandons the idea of a wall or barrier as the main way to secure borders.
The idea that Trump has evolved is not true. Saying people should listen more carefully to what Trump says is irrelevant. If Trump is concerned about securing the border with a variety of means he should sign the bill proposed by democrats that does exactly that.
It's not a question of listening, it's a question of signing. Trump is the roadblock here.
Democrats are not opposed to security and all this sheriff wants to secure the border, the democrats agree with.
This can only end with Trump accepting the facts and truth.
The only thing that prevents this government for being bipartisan is Trump. That's why he should go. he has nothing to do in politics.
4
I want to thank the Sheriff for his balanced, honest, and compassionate responses. I hope you can make his voice heard! This is the kind of intelligent dialogue we need right now! A complex issue needs a multi-solution response. Thank you for bringing us reality and truth!
11
Well said @Carole. The Sheriff's responses are lucid, balanced, practical-yet-heartfelt, and relevant!
1
Trump cannot be trusted; he flip-flops on a regular basis. It's incredible that Trump asked, if he put DACA/Dreamers on the table, would the Democrats agree to the "wall" -- didn't we see that move before?
The increase, in people dying in the desert after crossing the southern border, has been discussed for many years. Ever since walls were built and other border security increased, immigrants were funneled toward crossing at more dangerous parts of the border. It, also, didn't help to have government officials deliberately going around to find and empty gallon jugs of water that concerned citizens left out for immigrants in desert areas.
Confiscating a bunch of meth-amphetamine is not surprising as it has been popular for ~20 years, but no one should be certain that it's not cooked up in their county. I live in a quiet, very low crime, rural MN town of <300 people, and the county sheriffs found a meth lab in one of our homes. It's also likely that those Pima Co. drugs crossed the border via an official entry point (like most drugs); so, walls won't help.
Finally, if Trump is such a humanitarian, why is he threatening to take money away from hurricane relief and fire relief efforts to pay for his "wall" -- not to mention all the other ways Trump fails at care, compassion, or being a humanitarian?
As Trump said, he can "do" national emergency -- truer words were never spoken.
4
As a native to Arizona and a staunch liberal living in SF now, I found Shariff Napier's comments intelligent and well considered for all peoples on all sides of the equation. He renewed spin on the debate for me and I have to admit that a wall is not such a bad idea with all things considered and knowing first hand how easy it is to run drugs across the border.
5
@erik, pay closer attention to what the sheriff said. Running drugs across the border is still not an issue due to the lack of a wall.
1
@BoulderBill maybe you should pay closer attention : https://www.pimasheriff.org/files/8015/4653/7574/2019borderSecurityLetter_v2.pdf
I don't doubt Mr. Napier's years of experience or the validity of those that work for him. However, never did he mention anything to do with a proactive diplomatic approach of engaging with foreign governments to reduce immigrants through education. The lens by which he views this issue is perhaps myopic because of his innate bias as a sheriff. I also wonder if he was a federal employee that was about to stop receiving a paycheck if his views on who is responsible for the shutdown would change.
I take specific issue with his notion that US policy incentivizes immigrants to travel thousands of miles with children or young adults so to take advantage of a system that allows for families easier access to enter our country. This implies a level of premeditated thought on the part of immigrants to circumvent our legal system. If this is truly the case, the motivations of illegal immigrants far surpass what any barrier (wall) is capable of stopping.
Trump doesn't care about immigrants, legal or illegal. What is important to him is how he is view by others, period. He lacks the ability to sympathize, let alone empathize with the average US citizen. He merely prays on the worst fears in those of our country that few his power and position as President as the truth. He needs to recognized for what he truly is: a danger to democracy and to the stability of well-being of our country.
And to think the NYT is fake news, haha. Keep up the solid journalism!
5
This is what political quicksand is, made evermore evident by the practical, rational, heartfelt, non-political views of this Pima County sheriff. It's a shame that he is not the president.
2
Great interview. I absolutely agree with the sheriff's assessment. The President needs to clarify to the public what he's talking about when he says "we need to build a wall" and stop trying to spin the humanitarian crisis with all the talk about the physical structure of a wall, the criminals, and the rapists. Surely it is horrific when one's loved one gets killed by an illegal or dies from a drug overdose caused by illegal drugs getting into the US. ...we certainly have our fair share of Americans raping and killing. It is a humanitarian crisis when families desperately make the trek in the hope of making a better life for their children. Trump needs to learn to speak clearly to the American public and the democrats and republicans in both the senate and house need to stop playing politics at the expense of everyone affected by this unwillingness to do the right thing, especially these desperate families.
Sheriff Napier is trying to have it both ways. Is he running for office as a Republican?
6
When I read the title of today's podcast I assumed it would be another example affirming the viewpoint of Trump-skeptic readers like myself as regularly found in the pages of this venerable newspaper. Instead I was encouraged to find that the NYT had solicited a considered dissenting opinion. Well done to The Daily for presenting a variety of perspectives on important issues.
3
“Wall” is a generalization. Trump has made it clear that where an alternative barrier is appropriate he would support that.
It is not clear that a majority of Americans oppose an appropriate “barrier” on the border. Americans are not that stupid.
Even Hillary, among other prominent Democrats, has supported building a border “barrier” on several occasions.
Most of us who were born in and live in the United States have in our background several generations of ancestors who migrated from the east crossing the Atlantic ocean or the west crossing the Pacific ocean. They wanted a better life free from torture and destruction. And this is what marks my life and my fellow citizens of the United States. I was born on Long Island, New York in 1927. I am free to be myself and grateful for my freedom that I am expressing today, January 11, 2019.
It was good to hear a conversation with a Republican sheriff on the border who sees border control as a complex issue. And you did challenge his notion that Trump was changing his position by avoiding use of the word "wall" during his visit.
But why didn't you challenge him on the false notion that the Democrats aren't offering a serious comprehensive proposal? They have produced bi-partisan proposals that could move forward except for McConnell's refusal to let them come to a vote. Is he even aware of these proposals now on the table?
Even worse, you allowed him to cite examples of drug smuggling and crime by migrants coming over the border without reminding him that the actual big-picture data show that most drugs come through by other means and that immigrants have lower crime rates that native-born people. In the toxic political environment created by this president, this contrary evidence needs to be cited EVERY time this false narrative is raised.
This presidency is NOT NORMAL! Democrats must be held to account as well, but false equivalencies only serve to normalize a dangerous crisis of leadership that challenges the very basis of our democracy.
15
OK - this episode was a change from my earlier experiences with The Daily.
I don't believe that one 9-min speech helped the sheriff believe that the Wall is overrated - and no one wants to act on this, that the administration is working out of humanitarian concerns. The president lied yesterday about another Caravan!!
Who will 'de-associate from the word wall'?
2
If the current administration articulated their border security policy as empathetically as Sheriff Napier, I would whole-heartedly support "building a wall." Unfortunately, I don't believe the motives of this administration align with the compassionate explanation the Sheriff provided. I believe their intentions are more malicious.
10
Terrific interview between Michael and Sheriff Napier of Pima County. My take-away is that physical barriers do make sense in a portion of the border, but not the entire border. In not all, but many sections of the Sheriff's county along the border. I was struck and saddened to hear the Sheriff mention over 100 bodies are found in his county from migrants each year. I grew up in Texas and would hate to see a massive wall or barrier along the Rio Grande due to environmental and "government taking of land/eminent domain" concerns, but a physical barrier in other areas, like Pima County, make sense. It's just very difficult to think Trump will be reasonable and sensitive about where a barrier will be constructed. He is making political decisions.
The Sheriff is right on this one, and has voiced the view that Trump supports hold - The President MUST secure the nation, and he MUST see to it that a "wall" is built as part of that securing process, because he knows and the nation knows that without a "wall" we will never be a secure nation. The left has become so focused on nailing the President on some fetching "wall" word usage, losing focus on what the issue has been about from the very beginning, from his very 1st rally as a presidential candidate - secure the nation. I understand why the opposition does this "wall" word usage shenanigans, but it's time to stop playing semantics and do what's right and BUILD THE "WALL".
@GrimmTale. I disagree, based on numerous reports of residents of border towns. A long-time resident of Nogales, AZ (a border town south of Tucson) posted her response to the Pima County sheriff's podcast, on Facebook, as follows.
"... in the 1990's the "wall" was built in the city of Nogales, and that crime went away.
I'm not opposed to walls in urban areas. They serve a purpose. I'm opposed to building walls outside urban areas because of our fragile ecosystem. Additionally, even in the city of Nogales where we have a wall, tunnels are uncovered multiple times per year.
As far as any perceived crisis, I agree with the [Pima County] sheriff that it pertains to the humanitarian crisis of the plight of the migrants.
The solution is not to build a wall, but to invest in NGO's that support education and small businesses in Central America. Our policies contributed to the instability there. If you broke it, fix it. If we were investing significantly in NGO's there, fewer people would be driven to leave their homes and families to undertake a dangerous and daunting trek across Mexico to live in the shadows in the United States.
Aside from that, there is no crisis. We are safe in Santa Cruz County. We have a low crime rate. The numbers of victims of violent crimes perpetrated by undocumented migrants are also low. You are much more likely to be raped or murdered by a U.S. citizen."
1
@GrimmTale
Is Trump ranting with air quotes? Are his fans chanting with air quotes?
I appreciate the Sheriff's work and experience with this. However, he was totally taking in by a few moderation's given during the President's address. My take is that the address does not change anything, because the president is not an honest broker, and his speech does not at all represent his position at all. His handler's wanted to make an appeal to people like the Sheriff and it worked. I also wonder why the Sheriff isn't the President. He seems like a reasonable and principled person with concern for others.
2
I very much enjoyed hearing Sheriff Napier express his very common sense and level-headed views on border security in this episode. I hope that his recommendations for our ongoing border troubles will be listened both in Washington and by our divided electorate. Thank you as always for your excellent reporting.
1
Excellent episode. Mark Napier, the sheriff, is thoughtful, articulate, caring, clearly knows the problems at the border far better than 99.9% of those we hear talking about them. Thank you for this.
2
I really appreciate the perspectives and insights of this Sheriff, he is intelligent, insightful, and doesn’t just consume whatever handful of information being handed to him. Leaders like this are becoming rarer and rarer and all the time, leaders who assess the realities of the world and for themselves and make compromised and quality decisions! Really enjoyed this interview his county is lucky to have him!
2
Michael: Great podcast, as always. I was a bit disappointed, though, that neither you nor Napier clearly characterized and distinguished individuals and groups who attempt to enter the country illegally and legally. "Illegal" means attempting to evade CBP and other U.S. authorities when entering the United States. If successful, such individuals have no documentation of legal residence in the U.S. Legal immigrants *include* (but obviously are not limited to) individuals and families seeking asylum from persecution and violence in their home countries who do *not* try to evade U.S. border authorities and who voluntarily submit to prescribed procedures for entry. My impression is that the data shows that illegal immigration (as defined here) has greatly decreased over the last ten years (though this is, by definition, harder to measure), while asylum-seekers have increased in numbers more recently. These two categories are regularly conflated by the President and, sadly, in the media -- making more difficult reasonable attempts to address the problems of immigration across the southern border. While probably not appropriate for this interview, I would also like to hear more about what's happening in Central America to incentivize families to (legally) seek asylum in the U.S. despite the Trump Administration imposing more barriers to doing so. I assume things are getting worse in Honduras, etc., but I've have heard very little reporting -- from NYT or elsewhere -- on this.
8
It's fascinating because the border sheriff appears to support a humanistic compassionate opinion - which IS the view of the Democrats - while saying it's what Trump (aka Stephen Miller) wants. I agree with what the border sheriff has to say.
Thank you for your excellent in-depth reporting. I love listening to the Daily on a daily basis. Keep up your Amazing Work. I'm one Very Happy Subscriber to the NYT!
Excellent podcast today, interviewing the articulate sheriff at the border in Arizona. In essence he said we should address all the issues indicated in the beginning of Trump’s speech to the nation, which should include a wall where necessary. He indicated a total wall across the entire length of the southern border is not realistic. I believe his thoughts can be the basis of a compromise that will not only open the government, but will address both the humanitarian and security concerns that have been neglected for many years by different administrations. This is an opportunity to do something really great for America.
Mark sounds like a great sheriff that is rightly concerned about the humanitarian crisis happening at the border and in his county.
Unlike Trump, he acknowledges that the crisis mainly affects impoverished migrants, not American citizens.
Where he falters is his insistence that Trump sees the issue the same way. Mark is frustrated how political this crisis has become but refuses to lay the blame on Trump.
From his recent comments in Texas, Trump is still insisting on physical barriers as the first thing we need to do. If that isn't "building the wall", I'm not sure what is.
15
This gentleman is so well spoken and reasoned. It was a good discussion. My only comment would be that I could wish he also mentioned to efforts of Speaker Pelosi to reason with the Administration.
Both Houses had a bill ready and passed that did include funding for “Border Security” but the president would not sign.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Trump’s need to satisfy his base (a minority) leads him to use combative language using the word WALL which obscures efforts on all sides to get to “Border Security”. In this respect, he cares more for the minority than the actual majority of Americans. Not particularly presidential.
8
I must have missed hearing how many miles of “wall” this Sheriff’s county already includes, and how he experiences the difference between legal border crossings at gates in that wall and people who cross where there is no wall.
I think I also must have missed hearing what specific measures he would suggest when he says he wants a “secure border.” He said he wants a bipartisan discussion, but what exactly should they discuss?
I wasn’t entirely sure, either, how he knows the origin of the drugs found during arrests in his county. He sounded certain they came from Mexico and other Central American countries, but in one sentence-string, he seemed to conflate heroin, cocaine, & methamphetamines. Does he have evidence these all come across the border, in places without security? Or are they getting past the “security” checkpoints?
I was heartened to hear him describe immigrants and refugees without using the dehumanizing language used by the President, and to acknowledge that it’s a humanitarian crisis for the migrants. Others in his role in other counties have been unable to see it that way.
Do the statistics about conditions for and treatment of immigrants and refugees in his county differ from those in other counties?
3
@Erica Siskind Your points are well-taken. I would have appreciated the sheriff addressing them, too (i.e, the questions in your first 3 paragraphs). Maybe in a future interview? I found the interview frustrating, because of these unanswered questions.
Pima County has 125 miles of border, all of it rural and harsh desert. Only 2 entry stations: one is a small town and the other is in Organ Pipe National Monument. Both locations have "pedestrian fences", what we would call walls. You can see an interactive map of the border wall (fence) at
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map .
I think this Sheriff provides first hand knowledge and experience about dealing with the immigration/migration problem/crisis at the border. He is level headed in his description of the scenario and he also clearly outlines that what is needed is far more than a "wall." He actually talks about how it is unrealistic to put a wall in some places. He makes a clear point in talking about increases in border agents and technology, as well as the need for detention/housing centers. He is also clear that this is not a partisan issue and actually wishes the conversation could move forward.
I think we all wish the conversation would move forward at this point. President Trump has denied Democrats proposals that encompass increased border agents and technology as well as the housing issue. He is so fixated on a campaign promise that he is willing to allow this government shut down to continue which is having a devastating impact on many, many Americans.
2
I didn't agree with everything Sheriff Napier had to say, but he provided an informed and well-reasoned perspective on our border situation. Refreshingly, he was nothing like Joe Arpaio, the controversial former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.
Sherrif Napier makes a very clear and convincing case as to why immigration is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis. His personal experience, combined with statistics detailing the amount of deaths, sexual assaults, etc. over the last ~30 years, supports this position. The Sherrif obviously sees a greater need for a holistic fix to immigration rather than a physical barrier, which he dissaovows multiple times in this interview. It’s disappointing that he can’t outright oppose the President’s call for a wall, which he has affirmed many times over is nothing more than a physical barrier. The President has never appeared to embrace holistic immigration reform, and for this reason Sherrif Napier and the President disagree on border security whether the Sherrif realizes this or not.
5