The Daily - What a Border Sheriff Thinks About the Wall

Episode Date: January 11, 2019

A majority of Americans oppose the construction of a border wall. President Trump’s insistence on building it has led to a bitter political impasse and a government shutdown. We spoke with a sheriff on the border who supports the president’s efforts. Guest: Mark Napier, the sheriff of Pima County, Ariz. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. A majority of Americans oppose building a border wall. But the White House continues to double down on it. And the government remains closed over it. A conversation with a sheriff on the border who supports the president's efforts.

It's Friday, January 11th. Hello, this is Sheriff Napier. Hey, Sheriff, it's Michael Barbaro from The Times. How have you been? Michael, I'm fine. How are you today? Good, good, good, good. I know it's been a while since we spoke,. How have you been? Michael, I'm fine. How are you today? Good, good, good, good. I know it's been a while since we spoke, and we are, again, grateful for your time. Oh, thank you.

So to catch our listeners up, remind us about the county where you are sheriff and its relationship to the southern border. Sure. I'm in Pima County, Arizona. I'm the sheriff of that county. We have 125-mile linear exposure to the international border, which is the largest of any one of the 31 border counties adjoining the U.S.-Mexico international border. So you have a very up-close view of the situation there. Absolutely. On a clear day, I can almost see the mountains in Mexico from my office window. And you may remember this, but the first time that we spoke nearly two years ago, it was right after President Trump began cracking down on deportations. And in the time since, we've only seen immigration policies intensify. And I'm thinking, for example, of family separation. I want to understand what it's been like for you down there in Pima County as these policies have been implemented. And I want to start

with the people trying to cross the border into your county. What's been the impact of all of these policies on that? What are you seeing? Well, I've been in this valley for 31 years and I've been in law enforcement here for a very long time. And it used to be the migrants coming up from the border were traditionally Mexican descent, generally single males coming here, presumably to work or to engage in other activities. But over the past year or so, we've seen that change to more of a majority of OTMs, meaning people other than Mexican descent, and more females and more family units. So it's a very dynamic change in who's trying to come up through our border without proper documentation. Taking care of family units is very different than taking care of single males. It presents a lot of challenges with respect to housing. And just because somebody

comes to the border holding the hand of a minor child does not necessarily mean that's the person's legitimate custodian. And we have a system that incentivizes to some degree somebody in Central America thinking, well, you know what, I'll grab my minor child by the hand and I'll walk hundreds of miles through environmental conditions that are harsh through areas of criminality, in the hope of getting to America and being able to simply walk across. And that's a human rights issue that we should not incentivize that activity because it's exceptionally dangerous. And I'm glad that the president did this on Tuesday night. He led with a humanitarian issue. This is a humanitarian issue.

It's a human rights issue. In a way, and perhaps you don't intend to do this, but in a way you're laying out the justification for family separation, which is that the current system incentivizes people to bring children to the border because it increases the possibility that they will be allowed to stay. To some degree, that's true. And I'm certainly, I understand all sides of this issue and the specter of family separation. That's a troubling sight. I have four children. I have a granddaughter who's two years old. I think any human is troubled by that sight. But in fairness to my federal partners, they're in just a terrible bind with this. The system's just not designed to house this many family units. And for the period that the asylum process takes, it just overwhelms the system. So you said that you appreciated the president using the word

crisis on Tuesday night in his primetime speech. So you think that he's right that there is at this moment a crisis at the border? Michael, yes. And it's not President Trump's crisis or this administration's crisis. This has been a crisis the entire 31 years I've been in this valley. My deputies, as I've told you in the past, recover over 100 bodies a year in the deserts of my county. And we've been doing this for decades. drug trafficking but human trafficking in the victimization of of migrants at the hands of bandits and coyotes is also a public safety issue and there is an underlying national security concern more cocaine is coming into this country we're having overdoses every day and that's not the president being dramatic that happened in my community i i know this is true it used to be if you got

two ounces a heroin or two ounces of methamphetamine, that was considered a big bust in my part of the world. That was a big deal. This past week, my deputies confiscated 10 pounds of methamphetamine. You go back 15 years ago, that would have been unthought of. We couldn't even imagine that. Now, Michael, those drugs are not being cooked in my county. We know they're coming up from the border. And the other thing is that we know that the large portion of that amount of

methamphetamine is not going to be consumed in my county. It's going elsewhere. It's going all over the nation. So it's an evolving problem. It's a very complex problem, but it is, in fact, crisis. It's interesting that you're so definitive about this because there is a significant debate about whether or not this represents a crisis. And in your mind, there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity. There is none. And it's easy to have a debate. And I'm not casting inspiration to you, my friend, but it's easy to have a debate in New York City. It's harder for me to have a debate when I read the resumes created by my deputies that say we recovered another body in the desert. We went to another overdose. We heard that another woman had been sexually assaulted on her way up from the border. So this stuff is stuff that I

live every day. So while it may be an interesting political argument in other parts of the country, it's not a political argument where I live. Well, what about the idea that the president's own policies, when it comes to those trying to get across the border, and I'm thinking, for example, about metering those trying to get across the border for asylum or family separation, to get across the border for asylum or family separation, that those have together effectively turned a border situation into a crisis. So here I'm not talking about drugs, but about the humans trying to get across. What would you say about that? Did in some ways these changes the president made meaningfully make this all worse? Well, that's a two-sided argument,

because on the other side of that argument would say there are less people trying to come across now than there was 10 years ago, and that's a statistical fact. And I don't know that you can necessarily blame this president, but having been in this valley for 31 years, I've heard Democratic administrations, Republican administrations, one after another, say they're going to address this problem, that they've got a solution to this, that we're going to fix the immigration system, we're going to secure the border. And three decades later, here we are. What my fear is, because I'm in the twilight of my career life, my fear is that you'll be talking to some sheriff 30 years from now who will be saying, I wish we could address this problem. Well, I think perhaps one of the reasons that Democrats and others are resisting this word crisis is because the president is using it to justify funding a border wall or to declare a

national emergency to get a border wall built. Do you think that the wall, Sheriff, is a viable solution to what you agree with the president is a crisis. You know, Michael, I was quoted two years ago as saying a wall is a medieval solution to a modern problem. I remember you being quoted saying that because you said it to me. A wall by itself isn't in fact that, but that's not what the president's talking about. That's all we're reporting upon. If you listen to the president speak on Tuesday and you look at that transcript, the word wall, I think only appeared in there three times in nine minutes. What he talked about first was he talked about the humanitarian crisis. Then he talked about the

public safety crisis and national security concern. The next thing he said was technology. Then he said human resources. And then he said physical barriers. But we are all so caught up in this term, the wall, and what constitutes a wall? How high is it? What is it made of? There is no question, and I mean none, and a part of any thinking individual that would say physical barriers are not a great tool in certain locations, because they are. They absolutely work, but they have to be supported with technology and human resources. Otherwise, they're simply an impediment. And that's what I was referring to when the president originally came out and said, I'm just going to build a wall.

Well, a wall by itself isn't the solution. It is a medieval approach. What isn't a medieval approach is looking at the landscape at 2,000 miles of international border and saying, okay, over here, physical barriers make great sense and we should erect them because they're a great tool. Now, I get in trouble with Republicans all the time because I don't come out with full-throated support of the wall. The problem is if you erect a wall and walk away from it, it's a nuisance. It will always have to be maintained. It will always have to be monitored because people always try to defeat it. It will always have to be monitored because people will always try to defeat it. And we've seen that with the existing fencing. And a lot of the wall thing was my uttering frustration two years ago with, okay, it's not that simple.

There are places in my county you will never build a wall. And people in my county get very angry when I say that. Because it's not practical for geographical reasons. It's not practical for topography, water flow, land use reasons. There's a whole bunch of reasons why there'll never be a wall for the 2,000 miles of our international border. I'm less interested with how we secure the border than the fact that we do it. This constant argument over what constitutes a wall and what is it, a physical barrier, is it steel, is it concrete, is not moving the ball forward. Let's commit ourselves in a bipartisan fashion to gaining border security, which Democrats have previously agreed is a problem. They've agreed to that in the past. In fact, they've agreed that physical barriers make sense in certain locations. So let's quit bickering about this, sit down and see if we can

broker a solution to this and realize that physical barriers will always be a part of the in certain locations. So let's quit bickering about this, sit down and see if we can broker a solution to this and realize that physical barriers will always be a part of the equation. But the term the wall has become a lightning rod divisive issue, and it really shouldn't be. I hear you on this, but isn't it the case that the president's insistence on a wall running the full length of the U.S.-Mexican border is really the only thing standing in the way of doing what you're describing. It really seems to be the case that Democrats and Republicans mostly agree on almost everything involving border security, and we could actually end the government shutdown pretty much today or tomorrow,

and also fund border security if we could do away with this word wall, right? So like it or tomorrow, and also fund border security, if we could do away with this word wall, right? So like it or not, the wall is being treated as an actual physical wall. And it's the president who's using that word, even if he occasionally shifts away from, you know, what it will be made of exactly. Well, Michael, I don't think it is the intent of the president now to have a wall going the 1980 linear miles international border. Now, he may have said such things two years ago, but I really think the president has listened to experts. And I think if you really look at what he's asking for, he's now not asking for, you know, 1980 miles of wall. He's asking for, he's now not asking for, you know, 1980 miles of wall. He's asking for physical barriers where they make sense, technology, human resources.

That's what he led with Tuesday. I've been critical of the president, and I've gotten beat up for that. But I was so proud of what he said on Tuesday because he made the case and he led with the thing that's nearest to my heart, which is a humanitarian issue. Sheriff, when you talk about a humanitarian crisis, you tend to talk about more what's happening to the migrants or to the people affected by the drug trafficking. The president talks about that some and a little bit more than usual on Tuesday night, but he tends to talk mostly about Americans being murdered and raped and victimized by people who have come into this country illegally. tends to talk mostly about Americans being murdered and raped and victimized by people

who have come into this country illegally. Do you agree that that's a legitimate depiction of the crisis? It is a facet of it. There is crime committed by people without proper documentation. And I think people rightly look at that and say, oh my God, if we had not allowed that person to come into this country, perhaps this would not have occurred. And whether that's one person being killed or one person being raped or whatever, it is desperately important to the family of that individual. So I think it's right to address that, but more my focus, because it is a more pronounced problem, is the victimization of migrants and the human rights aspect to the failed security at our border and the failed immigration system. When I speak to

groups, I ask them sometimes, what would you do if your family were impoverished, if your family were desperate, if your family were in danger? How many of you do anything you could? And almost everybody raises their hand. And I said, how many of you would walk a hundred miles across the desert to try to find a better life for your family? And most of them do, except they'll realize I kind of tricked them. Well, that's the point, Michael, is there people in other parts of the world that are making very, very desperate decisions and they're trying to get here for a better life. And many of them are dying. And the bones that we recover in my county, well, that's somebody's husband. It's somebody's brother. It's somebody's father who maybe five years ago started walking from El Salvador and said, I'm going to provide a better life for you.

And their family will never know what befell them. I'm trying to understand who you think is holding up the government from reopening and funding border security through the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats and Republicans both agree on the need for improved border security. President Trump walked out of negotiations a day or so ago when the new House speaker said specifically that she would not support a wall. So how is a wall not the thing holding all of this up? That's a complex question. Probably one better address to the president and Speaker Pelosi than some lowly little county sheriff in Arizona. But what I wish would happen is that we would kind of disassociate our discourse from the word the wall.

wall and let's reconvene and agree that we, without respect to partisan ideology or other factors, agree that we need to have control over our southern border. So that's what I kind of wish. Let's quit talking about what a wall is. I'm disinterested in that. Let's talk about what the best way to secure the border is. But it feels like we can't quit talking about what a wall is. I think a lot of people would very much like to stop talking about that. And that's what I'm trying to understand. I really can't see how anyone can move forward in addressing the crisis

when the president continues to insist that there must be a wall and only a wall, full stop. I think the president has started to move away from that. But remember, a large portion of his constituents elected him because he said he was going to build a wall. So I can understand where politically you need to keep that word in the vernacular of how you discuss this issue. But he is changing his tune, and I'm glad to see that. Because again, Michael, this is not a political issue for me. This is where I live, and where I'll live long after I'm

not the sheriff. So this is an important issue. It tugs at my heartstrings as a Christian, as a person who cares about people. We need to address these issues. They're very serious issues. See, this has become a battle of who wins, too. And that's both blame to Speaker Pelosi and the president. It's a battle of who wins now. Why do we want to win? The real win is for the American people when we fix a very difficult problem. But just so I'm clear, you do support the president's efforts to break through on this issue. Am I correct in describing it that way? I support our political leaders breaking through on this. That involves both the Democrats and the president. I support an effort to let's fix this, guys. There is a fix

here, and let's move forward. My understanding, Sheriff, is that everyone does want to secure the border. So what would you encourage the president to do for this to move forward and to result in the kind of border security that you think is necessary to solve what you believe is a crisis? What would you say to him if he visited you and your county as part of his trip to the border today? I would just say, let's make clear when you utter the term the wall, Mr. President, I believe I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure everybody else does. I think that people kind of hear the word the wall and they stop listening. It's important to listen to everything that somebody says. And do I wish he say it with greater clarity? Of course I do. You know, I have a certain style of communication and he has a different style, but I believe I understand exactly what he means because he

has listened to smart people around him. And I think Secretary Nielsen is very smart. So, yeah, he could make it clearer, but I think people need to listen more intently. So I'd ask the president more clearly to find what he means when he says a wall, to stay on the humanitarian focus, the public safety focus, to not go down rabbit holes of whether it's 3,000 terrorists or 4,000 terrorists or 12 terrorists. These are straw man arguments. It's interesting to me. There's no doubt that it is a national security concern that we don't know who's coming across the border. No rational person would tell me that, well, there's no problem there, Sheriff, that we should just not know. Well, that's crazy.

So last question for you, Sheriff. For people who have been hearing this and perhaps are not clear, what do you think the president really means by wall now? I think he means, and he said the word physical barrier, so I think that idea has evolved. And I think what he means is physical barriers work. It's undeniable. They do work in certain areas. And I think that's what he means. Just let's examine where barriers work. It's undeniable. They do work in certain areas. And I think that's what he means is let's examine where they work. You know, maybe that's 900 miles of international border. I'm just making that up for illustration. And in these 900 miles, we need to have physical barriers because they'll work. And the other is web technology, other is web human resources.

I do not believe at all that the president intends, as we might have thought two years ago, to have a 30-foot-high concrete wall on all 1,900 or 2,000 miles of international border. I don't think that's what he means at all, because if I thought that's what he means, I wouldn't support it, because it's not going to happen. Well, Sheriff, thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it, and until we speak again soon, good luck. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it. And until we speak again soon, good luck. All right. Well, thank you, Michael.

And you can call upon me anytime and I'll try to intelligently respond to your questions. Thanks very much. Thank you. Cheers. Bye-bye. On Thursday, President Trump traveled to the border town of McAllen, Texas, to make the case for his proposed wall, as the government shutdown entered its third week. I would like to do a much broader form of immigration, and we can do immigration reform. It'll take longer. It's been complex. It's been going on for 30, 35 years.

They've been talking about immigration reform. But we have to, before we do that, we have to create a barrier. That we can do very quickly. While at the border, the president renewed his threat to declare a state of national emergency that would allow him to bypass Congress to fund the wall. Now, if for any reason we don't get this going and they're not going to act responsibly

and they don't mind death and crime and all of the problems that they cause by not having a barrier, then you will see what happens with national emergency, which I can do very easily. And there's no question it holds up. And it was approved by Congress because the act itself was approved by Congress. Back in Washington, Vice President Mike Pence reaffirmed the president's position that there could be no agreement to reopen the government without funding for the wall, a position Democrats have already rejected. As of this morning, the shutdown will reach its 21st day. As of tomorrow, it will become the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. The Times reports that President Trump's longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, who implicated the president in a scheme to pay off women who said they had affairs with Trump, will publicly testify before Congress next month. Cohen has agreed to answer questions from the House Oversight Committee, promising to give the public a, quote, full and credible account of his work for Trump. a, quote, full and credible account of his work for Trump. Cohen will be one of the first witnesses before the committee since Democrats took it over from Republicans on January 3rd.

And scientists have found that the warming of the world's oceans is accelerating far more quickly than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for Earth's climate, since almost all heat trapped by greenhouse gases ends up stored in oceans. The research, published on Thursday, found that oceans are heating up 40% faster, on average, than a UN climate panel estimated five years ago, and as a result, are killing off marine life, raising sea levels, and making hurricanes more destructive. The Daily is produced by Theo Balcom, Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills,

Ike Srees-Conaraja, Claire Tennesketter, Michael Simon-Johnson, Jessica Chung, and edited by Lisa Tobin is our executive producer. Samantha Hennig is our editorial director. Our technical manager is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolman, Michaela Bouchard, and Stella Tan.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.