Archive

ShareThis Page
Trump’s pick for attorney general once questioned value of border wall | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Trump’s pick for attorney general once questioned value of border wall

The Associated Press
| Monday, December 31, 2018 1:06 p.m
591468591468ba8927d832e04a35be50bd804e3c2158
FILE - In this Dec. 7, 2018, file photo, President Donald Trump announces that he is nominating William Barr as his Attorney General, on the South Lawn of the White House, in Washington. Barr, once questioned the effectiveness of a border wall similar to the one the president now wants to construct. Barr was attorney general under President George H.W. Bush when he was asked in a 1992 interview if he supported a proposal from Republican challenger Pat Buchanan to erect a barrier of ditches and fences along the Mexican border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Barr described a side-to-side barrier as “overkill.” (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
59146859146881a14d6edcb54d5ca20e4ee596f8036c
FILE - In this Nov. 26, 1991, file photo, President George H.W Bush, right, and William Barr wave after Barr was sworn in as the new Attorney General of the United States at a Justice Department ceremony in Washington. Barr, President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, once questioned the effectiveness of a border wall similar to the one the president now wants to construct. Barr was attorney general under President George H.W. Bush when he was asked in a 1992 interview if he supported a proposal from Republican challenger Pat Buchanan to erect a barrier of ditches and fences along the Mexican border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Barr described a side-to-side barrier as “overkill.” (AP Photo/Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, William Barr, once questioned the value of a wall along the Mexican border similar to the one the president has advocated, describing the idea as “overkill.”

Barr was attorney general under President George H.W. Bush when he was asked in a Feb. 24, 1992, interview whether he supported a proposal from Republican presidential challenger Pat Buchanan to erect a barrier of ditches and fences along the border to stop illegal immigration.

“I don’t think it’s necessary. I think that’s overkill to put a barrier from one side of the border to the other,” Barr replied on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour” on PBS. “In fact, the problem with illegal immigration across the border is really confined to major metropolitan areas. Illegal immigrants do not cross in the middle of the desert and walk hundreds of miles,” instead choosing more “certain specified routes.”

Those routes through more populated areas have since largely been closed off, pushing migrants to riskier desert routes.

Other public statements by Barr from his tenure as attorney general and within the last year suggest a hardened immigration approach more in line with the broader security measures Trump and his advisers have discussed.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on whether Barr’s views on a wall have changed, but pointed to other comments from his tenure in which he described fences as effective in stopping drugs and illegal immigration. As attorney general, he also announced the hiring of additional agents to patrol the border and promoted upgraded fencing and investments in sensors and other technology.

Barr’s positions on immigration are significant because of the Justice Department’s role in defending and enforcing administration policies and because border security has been a top priority of Trump’s White House. While the Justice Department today prosecutes people who cross the border illegally and defends the administration’s policies, it was more directly involved in immigration enforcement during Barr’s earlier tenure as attorney general — 1991 to 1993 — because it included the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That agency was disbanded and its responsibilities largely folded into the Department of Homeland Security following the 9/11 attacks.

Barr’s past comments on the effectiveness of a wall reflect a nuance often missing from Trump’s rhetoric, who made the construction of a “big beautiful wall” of concrete and steel a centerpiece of his campaign, and who has more recently cited a lack of additional funding for it as the reason for partially shutting down the government.

The president selected Barr to replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general after forcing Sessions out over Trump’s lingering outrage for his recusal from the Russia investigation. A transcript of the PBS interview was included in thousands of pages of documents Barr produced to the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of a confirmation hearing.

Trump’s ambition for a wall has given way to a more modest reality, with the president now describing the barrier as “artistically designed steel slats” and saying he doesn’t care what people call it.

His former chief of staff John Kelly told The Los Angeles Times in an interview published Sunday that Trump had abandoned the notion of “a solid concrete wall early on in the administration.”

Trump seemed to respond to Kelly with a tweet Monday morning saying “an all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED.”

Whatever the terminology, border security remains the central sticking point in the partial government shutdown. Trump is seeking $5 billion for a wall. Newly empowered congressional Democrats have resisted the demand in favor of enhanced technology.

In the 1992 interview with PBS host Jim Lehrer, Barr said the Justice Department was taking steps to control illegal immigration and that “there are some barriers that have reduced violence and made it easier to interdict the aliens crossing.”

But he expressed ambivalence about an expansive wall, saying, “They generally try to go up through certain specified routes and, in fact, we’re only talking about a 200-mile area where there’s appreciable crossings, illegal crossings, and in fact, 40 to 50 percent of the illegal crossings in the United States occur on a 14-mile stretch south of San Diego.”

Even if Barr does not embrace a sprawling border wall, there are other indications his immigration views won’t depart much from the aggressive stance of the White House and of Sessions, whose Justice Department defended a travel ban that blocked arrivals from some Muslim-majority countries and backed a since-abandoned enforcement policy that separated children from parents at the border.

Barr defended the legality of Trump’s travel ban in a January 2017 Washington Post opinion piece, saying complaints that it was discriminatory were “baseless” since only a handful of countries were singled out and the criterion for their inclusion “was not that they were Muslim but that the risk of terrorist infiltration from these countries is especially high.” He and other recent Republican attorneys general praised Sessions in a separate op-ed for “attacking the rampant illegality that riddled our immigration system.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.