Sorry, is “shares some concerns about the border” the same as “wanting to shut everything down and stop anyone from coming in?”

And if shutting down the border is not what is being proposed, maybe Biden shouldn’t be pledging to shut down the border.

The agreement is expected to give the executive branch a new legal authority to effectively suspend asylum in between official ports of entry when migrant crossings surpass certain thresholds. That would affect remote areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas where migrants regularly cross into the U.S. illegally to surrender themselves to overtaxed federal immigration officials who often release them because they don’t have the resources to screen everyone for asylum.

The power, which Mr. Biden referred to as an authority to “shut down the border” on Friday, would be mandated after average daily migrant crossings hit 5,000 over seven days, or 8,500 in a single day. It could also be activated on a discretionary basis after average daily crossings surpass 4,000 in a week. There would also be a limit on the number of days each year the president could invoke the authority.

When the authority is invoked, migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally would not be allowed to ask for asylum, and would face swift deportation to Mexico or their home country. Exceptions would be made for those who pass screenings for other, more difficult-to-obtain forms of humanitarian refuge, including protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The use of strong rhetoric can sway people who are vulnerable to emotional appeals on issues they understand little about. Like the majority of America on the border.

We’re a country whose most famous symbol has a poem welcoming people seeking asylum at its base. The irony seems lost.

I don’t disagree. I actually mentioned that earlier today, in fact. But sanity and virtue are not always winning issues in a democracy - or in politics in general. We work with what we have, not what we want.