Fact-Check: "Kamala Harris Now Supports Donald Trump's Border Wall!"

I've recently heard several MAGAs claiming Vice President Harris now supports their orange messiah's border wall. It may derive from the following Axios article, which I will now dissect.

The article starts with, "If she's elected president, Kamala Harris pledges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the wall along the southern border — a project she once opposed and called 'un-American'  during the Trump administration."
Something tells me this isn't the whole story, but I'll bite. Please continue...

"Why it matters: It's the latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions such as supporting Medicare for All and banning fracking — proposals that aides say she now is against.

- Harris is embracing a more hawkish immigration policy as Donald Trump's campaign spends tens of millions of dollars attacking her about the border.

- But she still has significant differences with Trump on immigration, opposing his approach to family separation and his plans for mass deportations."
Wait for it. Waaaaaaiiiit for iiiiiiit...

"Driving the news: In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris said she would sign the recent bipartisan border security bill — which Trump had ordered his allies to kill, fearing it would help Democrats in the November elections.

- That bill, negotiated by senators such as James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), requires hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent  funds to be used to continue building a wall on the border.

- 'It  requires the Trump border wall,' Lankford told Axios. 'It is in the bill itself that it sets the standards that were set during the Trump administration: Here's where it will be built. Here's how it has to be built, the height, the type, everything during the Trump construction.'

- Harris' campaign says the border deal is a whole lot more than continuation of wall funding — and a tiny fraction of what Trump has proposed."
...and there it is. The article implies Vice President Harris has explicitly called for us to build Trump's joke of a border wall ("It's going to be the toughest Styrofoam the world has ever seen!"), when she's merely calling for the bipartisan border-security bill - which Trump killed - to be passed. No, it's not perfect. There are things in there most Democrats - myself included - don't like, but that's how compromises work. Axios decided to cherry-pick, in order to make Harris come across as hypocritical, when the real story is Donald Trump and Republicans killed a border-security bill, solely because they were fearful it'd hurt their dear orange leader come election time. That's it. That's the story.

"Lankford's office estimated the legislation would spend $650 million on a wall, down from the $18 billion Trump requested in 2018.

The bill, which Murphy described as a 'compromise' also included provisions with more money for asylum lawyers and judges for the overloaded immigration system. It also gave the president the authority to shut  down the border if more than an average of 5,000 migrants crossed per day."
Wait, so the bill's border-wall spending would be just 3.6% of what Trump initially sought? According to Axios, apparently 3.6% is the new 100.0%. They're just 96.4% off, but who's counting?

"The other side: Harris advisers note that the bipartisan border proposal didn't include any new money to continue building the wall.

It just extended the timeline to spend funds that had been appropriated during Trump's last year as president, they say, although the legislation has new restrictions to ensure the money is spent on barriers."
The other side? Given the slant of this article, I'm hearing Darth Vader uttering those words: "Welcome...to the other side!" I also love how the authors attempted to showcase a sliver of semblance of impartiality here, by mentioning the Harris team's perspective on the matter, but felt the need to follow it up with, "...but..." Okay, it was "although," but still...

"Flashback: In declaring her candidacy in her first run for president in 2019, Harris called the wall Trump's  'medieval vanity project' that wasn't going to stop transnational gangs from entering the U.S.

- In February 2020, Harris wrote on Facebook that 'Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer.'

- In April 2017, soon after joining the Senate, Harris said the wall was a 'stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it.'"
Once again, the authors are completely missing the point and attempting to paint just 3.6% of a picture, while telling us it's finished. Fine, 7 years ago she said she'd block "any" funding for it. You got her. Way to go. Golf-clap. But once again, the word is 'compromise.' Come on, spell it with me: c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e. Almost exactly 7 years later, a bipartisan border-security bill made its way to the Senate. President Biden wasn't fully satisfied with it, but decided to place any quibbles he may have had to the side, for the good of the country. Vice President Harris was the same way. They put country first. Sue them.

"Between the lines: Lankford said he was surprised with Harris' full embrace of the border bill this year.

He told Axios that Harris wasn't involved in the months-long negotiations: 'We never saw any vice president staff here. ... She was a Johnny-come-never.'

'I know she's talking about it now, but she wasn't talking about it at all before."
...and I'm talking about James Lankford now, when I wasn't talking about him at all previously. What's your point, Johnny-B.-No-Goode?

"When the bill was released, Murphy called it an 'aggressive' plan but didn't emphasize the money for the wall.

'We're creating bold new tools to get control of the border for the first time in a long time,' he said in February. 'But our bill does not deviate from our nation's core values.'"
Of course he didn't emphasize the money, for the wall-funding was just 3.6% of what Trump initially sought. That'd be like me asking for $10,000; receiving $360; and then trying to tell people the supplier gave me everything I asked for.

"President Biden —  then the presumed Democratic nominee — lambasted Trump for demanding Republicans kill the compromise, calling it pure politics. 'He feels it would be a political win for me, and a political loser for him,' Biden said in his State of the Union address.

But some Democrats also criticized Biden for embracing conservative and restrictive policies on immigration that were included in the bill.

Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from Harris' home state of California, opposed the bill and said it 'fails to provide relief for a single Dreamer, a single farmworker, a single essential worker or long-term resident.'"
I have a feeling the authors of this "piece" have been listening to Trump for too long. They're even beginning to sound like him. They say, "Some Democrats," before just mentioning one specifically. To their credit, I guess, Trump typically says, "Some people," and doesn't specify anyone. That's a pretty low bar to hurdle, though.

"Zoom in: Beyond embracing the bipartisan bill, Harris' campaign has portrayed her as an immigration hardliner in ads.

- One Harris TV ad frames her time as California's attorney general as that of a 'border state prosecutor,' and includes images of the border wall.

- In another, Harris' team highlights her support of boosting the number of Border Patrol agents.

- Most of Trump campaign ads have attacked Harris for the Biden administration's struggle to deal with waves of migrants crossing the border."
Again, holy bias. "Harris TV ad frames her time" and "the Biden administration's struggle." Give me a break. Once again, Donald Trump and Republicans killed the border-security bill! President Biden finally gave up on the GOP and took matters into his own hands, by issuing an executive order, which temporarily restricted asylum-seekers. ...and guess what? Much to your chagrin, I'm sure, it worked.

"The bottom line: Like the wall itself, Harris' changes on border policy reflect how Trump has shifted the political debate on immigration during the past decade."
No, the bottom line is the authors of this article have apparently taken up the hobby of cherry-picking, where a giant wall between their ears has blocked most information from migrating into their measly minds.
https://axios.com/2024/08/27/kamala-harris-flip-flops-border-wall?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
#VoteKamalaHarrisAndTimWalz2024ToSaveAmerica #FactCheckingutm_campaign=editorial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social #VoteKamalaHarrisAndTimWalz2024ToSaveAmerica #FactChecking