It is June 16, 2016, in a lawyer’s office. The camera is centered on the complainant, arms crossed, striped tie. He calmly answers questions related to the lawsuit he filed against a former collaborator: chef Geoffrey Zakarian. 45 minutes into the testimony, defense attorney Deborah Baum begins a question: “The comments you made about immigrants…” He interrupts: “Illegal immigrants. An important issue in this country… And which led to my appointment. »
The moment reveals the instinct of this communicator who became president of the United States in the following months: immigration sells. It sells well, even.
Seven years later, the issue is still one of those that will weigh heavily in the voting booth, if not the one that will weigh the most. Not because this issue is more important than the impacts of climate change, than the opioid crisis, than the sound of the drums of war around the world, than the erosion of minority rights or democracy. It is central because it is the ingredient that makes the soufflé rise. Inevitably.
And the candidates in the Republican Party primaries were not mistaken. Ron DeSantis endorsed an ad last September whose centerpiece was the “war zone” border, where “every state is a border state.” Nikki Haley, last month, in New Hampshire, added that any border is a potential problem, and that “if it takes a wall, there will be a wall” on the Canadian-American border.
At a rally in Reno in December, the former Republican president repeated the same strategy: “It’s a military invasion fomented by Biden, authorizing drugs, criminals, gangs, terrorists to cross the border” with Mexico. , gaping if we believe his words.
Nothing is trivial about this.
It was by perverting the notion of invasion as it appears in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution that Texas Governor Greg Abbott took control of areas bordering from the Rio Grande two weeks ago. It was based on the right to self-defense of a federated state and on the theory of Calhoun’s pact: in this perspective, the federal state would be conceived as the product of the will of the federated states, and would be party to a pact with the federated states under which the latter could at any time set aside a federal law that appears unconstitutional to them. However, this theory of “nullification” was a driving force behind the Civil War. This constitutional storm (which is completely baseless) is a political storm (which has much more traction and potential).
Because the former president went further: he called on all states wishing to do so to deploy their national guards in Texas. Ron DeSantis obviously immediately jumped on the bandwagon, announcing Thursday the deployment of 1,000 National Guard troops from Florida to Texas. Quickly followed by Kristi Noem from South Dakota. A convoy of truckers, with the vocal support of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proclaimed themselves “God’s army” and headed to the border to confront the “globalists” who are plotting to keep “the borders wide open.” Even more serious, 25 Republican governors supported Abbott’s interpretation, drawing fine cracks in the federal structure.
It is undeniable that the humanitarian crisis is growing, both at the border and in transit and host States. It is obvious that it is now heavily affecting cities already marked by the pandemic, such as Chicago, New York or Denver (for a number of reasons which relate to multiple post-pandemic factors). Twenty-seven percent of Americans approve of the current president’s management of the border, twice as many prefer the old one. Thirty-four percent of Democrats support a border wall, up from 12% in 2017.
Even though, as analysts at the Migration Policy Institute explain, Biden has taken more steps than his predecessors in this area, it has little effect. The migration system is obsolete, unadapted to migrations which have changed profoundly and has not been the subject of substantial legislative reform for more than two decades. Stuck in an impasse that cuts across partisan divides, he is the Achilles heel of any faction that does not embrace a radical, populist approach. However, it is she who dominates the agenda here and elsewhere.
What does it matter what measures Biden was able to take, that his opponent is in the same age group as him and that the porosity of the border is a fiction. The anti-migrant discourse is molasses, engulfing Biden like an oiled cormorant: he escaped, he is old, the border is porous.
And the prevalence of this rhetoric is not to be taken lightly. By insisting that the border is a war zone, the shift is accentuated, with the backdrop of the dehumanization of those who take the road, as well as their exploitation for political purposes. This is evidenced by Abbott’s statement on the radio with Dana Loesch, former spokesperson for the NRA (National Rifle Association), when he said: “We are taking all possible measures. The only thing we’re not doing is shooting migrants crossing the border, because the Biden government would accuse us of murder. »
Or this conversation between the architect of Trumpist migration policies, Stephen Miller, with host Charlie Kirk on November 14: “I want everyone who is listening to us to understand that this is what is going to happen [avec le projet 2025]. If President Trump is back in January, this [des raids de grande envergure et des expulsions massives] will begin immediately, and it will be joyous, it will be wonderful,” while adding: “We have become more efficient, better informed, and more skilled on how to use bureaucracy to achieve adequate immigration outcomes, on how to identify like-minded federal officials, and how to weed out [les autres]. »
So the operation Lone Star (Lone Star) of the Texas governor did not really allow us to regain control of the border. But it has become a focal point for electoral rhetoric that is as effective as it is harmful. No matter the cost, financial ($10 billion), constitutional, human.