The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk.

And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security.

By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot.

The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.”

This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats.

What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies. 

Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge.

Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims.

But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration.

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days.

But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program. 

The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole!

All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them.

This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving.

Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy.

ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court.

And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot.

2024-08-13 18:36:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3119920%2Fjames-lankford-the-democrats-useful-border-idiot%2F?w=600&h=450, The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into,

The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk.

And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security.

By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot.

The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.”

This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats.

What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies. 

Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge.

Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims.

But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration.

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days.

But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program. 

The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole!

All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them.

This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving.

Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy.

ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court.

And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot.

, The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk. And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security. By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot. The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.” This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats. What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies.  Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge. Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims. But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration. The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days. But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program.  The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole! All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them. This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving. Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy. ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court. And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AP24025728756090.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Conn Carroll,