Closing the gate

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is talking about halting customs and immigration processing at airports in sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration efforts.

Here’s Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin floating the idea on Fox after an anti-ICE protest in Newark, New Jersey, on Memorial Day:

MULLIN: If they’re going to not allow us to go out and arrest the worst of the worst, and then when we call for assistance at the facilities and they’re barricading our employees from coming in and out of the facility, then why are we processing international flights into the airport there? 

We're currently drawing up plans to say, 'Listen, in these sanctuary cities where the local radical left Democrats aren't allowing us to do our job and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn't be processing international flights into their cities either, because they don’t want us to enforce immigration but they want us to process immigration at their facilities? Nothing about that makes sense to me.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: The idea is only in the discussion stage and not yet implemented policy.

Here to talk about what it could mean is Doris Meissner with the Migration Policy Institute. That’s a nonpartisan think tank in D.C. that focuses on the movement of people around the world and improving immigration policies.

Now Doris, people may hear “halting customs and immigration processing” and think all kinds of things that may or may not be true. So in practical terms, what would happen if this is implemented?

DORIS MEISSNER: It seems to me that what we're learning is very much a trial balloon. But if they are talking about, as they seem to be, targeting sanctuary cities, given what we know in the past and the concerns that we've heard expressed over time from this administration, it is probably places like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver. 

So these are, you know, major international gateway places where people come to the United States largely for tourism purposes, for business purposes, to attend events. And so the idea then of not clearing them to come into the United States when they arrive at an international airport, it's hard to understand what the connection would be between doing that and objecting to what this administration objects to, which is often limited cooperation from particular cities, generally blue cities, with federal immigration enforcement.

REICHARD: And what might be a practical effect of such a policy?

MEISSNER: Just think about what's coming up now with soccer and the World Cup, which this summer is going to involve games all over the country, and certainly in the New York area and in California. 

Would all of those people who have bought tickets to come to the United States not be cleared to enter the United States because they're flying to airports in cities that have immigration policies that the administration objects to? It's hard to say. But that would be one possible scenario if what they're talking about comes to pass. 

Now with all kinds of the policies that they have talked about and that they have implemented, there have always been large areas of exceptions, and so I'm certain (or I'm guessing) that there would be exceptions to whatever declaration of change this would be. But it does seem like an incredible stretch because I think it's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

REICHARD: As we mentioned, this is just a proposal under discussion. At this point it is not implemented policy. So Doris, I'm wondering, do you think the Department of Homeland Security has authority to do something like this, or do you think there's going to be legal challenges if it does?

MEISSNER: Well, I imagine there would be legal challenges. 

The Department of Homeland Security certainly does have the authority through its customs function and its function of clearing people to come into the country. It has the authority to deny people arrival in the country, but that's based on somebody that has an outstanding warrant or somebody who has a criminal background, somebody who is on a terrorist watch list. It has not ever applied, in my experience, to people who are traveling for normal travel purposes.

REICHARD: Well, this seems to me to be a way to disincentivize people from coming to the U.S., in order to cut down on nefarious characters coming in, no?

MEISSNER: I'm not so sure. I mean, people who are coming over on airplanes have already been cleared to travel to the United States. They either have a visa, I mean, people that are not U.S. citizens. And, and let's remember, most of the people that would be affected by flights coming to these jurisdictions will be U.S. citizens. Either people who are traveling, coming back from travel, or business people, or people who are coming for cultural reasons, actors, performers, sports figures. So there would be a heavy impact on U.S. citizens if flights are curtailed from going to places like Chicago and New York. I mean, just New York area airports admitted fifty million passengers last year. So we're talking about enormous numbers of people. 

But, among those passengers, those who are not U.S. citizens either have to have a visa, which means they have been cleared of having any reason to be excluded from the United States, or they have to have come from a country where we have what's called "visa waivers," which is that they don't require an individual visa, but there is a procedure that they go through to register that they're from a safe country like Germany or France or the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan. And those people too have been authorized to travel to the United States. So stopping them once they arrive in Los Angeles because it's a sanctuary city, I don't get the connection.

REICHARD: Taking a broader view now, would you say that the Trump administration has done a good job in other immigration areas, such as the southern border?

MEISSNER: Well, there's no question that the border today is far more secure than it has ever been in our history. I have never been against barriers at the border. When I was the commissioner of the immigration service, I argued for barriers selectively used and combined with other forms of enforcement. 

I've always argued that walls alone, barriers alone, cannot solve issues at the border. And I would want to point out that I spent thirty years in the government working on immigration issues, most of those years working for Republican presidents. Three of those stretches working for Republican presidents and two of them working for Democratic presidents. So I have a very bipartisan background on this issue.

REICHARD: Doris Meissner has been our guest, she's with the Migration Policy Institute. 

Doris, thanks so much.

MEISSNER: Thank you.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.