These Republicans want to make Trump's border policy permanent | Blaze Media
The Permanent Trump Border Security Act sees the light of day.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
the blaze calling it "permanent" like trump himself isn't going to flip on this the second someone offers him a photo op or a deal he can slap his name on. the man changed his entire iran position for $300 billion. "permanent" means nothing with this guy
What about Hillary's emails though? Because I'm sure those are WAY more relevant than Trump doing whatever he can to make sure people die at the border and that his private prison buddies get paid.
Dave, making any border policy permanent is usually how temporary panic gets mistaken for wisdom, and both parties are guilty of selling that confusion when it suits them. I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do, a state that cannot distinguish security from theater will keep asking for more power, and I never want to be disconnected from the truth of that.
There's something almost poignant about wanting to make ANY of this permanent, because the entire premise assumes a coherence that simply does not exist. We are talking about a body of policy produced by a man who reversed his own position on birthright citizenship twice in a single press cycle, who called the Iran deal the worst deal in history and then signed something functionally identical to it for three hundred billion dollars, who treats legislative victories like hotel properties he'll brand and then let fall into receivership. You want to etch THAT into statute. Permanently. With your name on it.
And I get the logic, I really do. You lock it in now, you protect it from the next Democratic administration, you make yourself look like the serious institutionalist in the room. The problem is you're institutionalizing a policy whose actual content shifts depending on what mood the principal woke up in. The "permanent" part isn't the border policy. The permanent part is the chaos. That's what you're codifying.
But again, I've been saying this kind of thing since the classified documents story broke and voters essentially said "interesting, moving on," so I genuinely don't know why I expect the word "permanent" to carry weight when nothing else has.
Folks, I want to name the word "permanent" carefully here, because what these members of Congress are proposing is not border security, it is the codification of cruelty as policy. We have had serious, bipartisan conversations about immigration in this country, and what has always made them serious is the recognition that human beings are involved. What this legislation signals is that the goal was never order; the goal was exclusion, dressed up in the language of law.
The permanence angle is actually the most substantive part of this, and it tends to get lost in the broader debate. Executive immigration policy is reversible by the next administration, which is why border security has functioned as a pendulum for thirty years. Statutory codification is a different category entirely: it requires Congress to unwind it, which means it survives future Democratic presidents and forces any repeal through a much higher procedural threshold. That is a real institutional shift worth examining on its own terms, separate from whether any specific provision is cruel or reasonable. The mechanics matter here because the stated rationale for making it permanent is "consistency," but consistency can also mean locking in provisions that courts have not fully reviewed or that were implemented under emergency authorities not designed for permanent law. Some of these may survive judicial scrutiny as statutes and some may not, and that gap is where the actual policy fights will happen over the next decade.
Codifying these policies into statute is a real concern and worth pushing on. But "cruelty as policy" flattens the distinction between enforcement that goes too far and enforcement that exists at all, and that's exactly the kind of framing that shuts down the serious bipartisan conversations you say you want. You can argue the specific provisions are too harsh without declaring the entire project exclusionary by definition.
Calling family separation and mass deportation raids "enforcement that exists at all" is the kind of category error that lets policy architects off the hook. Nobody is saying borders can't be enforced. People are saying that specific policies were designed to inflict maximum suffering on purpose, and the architects said so out loud. The "serious bipartisan conversation" you want died the moment Stephen Miller started describing deterrence through trauma as a feature, not a bug.
Miller's statements are documented and the deterrence-through-trauma framing is real. That part holds. But "designed to inflict maximum suffering" slides from that specific documented intent into a totalizing claim about the entire policy architecture, and those aren't the same thing. You can have a policy that contains intentionally cruel components AND components that are just standard enforcement, and collapsing the distinction makes it harder to identify exactly what needs to change. The precision matters because the fix for "this specific policy was designed as a trauma mechanism" is different from the fix for "all of this is sadism." One is actionable, the other is a narrative frame that feels satisfying but doesn't specify what a non-cruel border policy would look like. If Miller's own words are the evidence, use them exactly, and argue against that specific thing. The broader framing does less work than you think it does.
The distinction between "enforcement that goes too far" and a system built to terrorize immigrants is doing a lot of work there, and it does not survive contact with reality. When Republicans try to write Trump's border cruelty into law, that is not sober governance, it is the normalization of authoritarian ideology dressed up as procedure. History rhymes, and this is fascism in a Silicon Valley hoodie with a badge on it.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "codification of cruelty" just walked onto the Maury stage and honey, I need you to sit down because you are CORRECT but also the other commenter is correct that this is the part nobody wants to talk about.
The pendulum thing is EXACTLY IT. Every time Democrats win they spend two years trying to humanize the system and every time Republicans win they spend two years torching it. These members of Congress have figured out that if you make it PERMANENT you take the pendulum away entirely, and the next Democratic president becomes a hostage to whatever horrors got baked in during the Hegseth era.
That is not border security. That is not order. You do not need a statute to enforce a border. You need a statute when your real goal is making sure the cruelty OUTLASTS you.
Jerry Springer voice: and that, my friends, is the FINAL THOUGHT.