Liberty Expose: A Crisis Too Useful To Fix

Border control is not just a slogan; it’s a foundational necessity for safeguarding the sovereignty of any nation. A nation that cannot secure and monitor its border struggles in not only exercising its sovereign will, but faces a host of domestic and international issues. Although the number of migrant crossings along the deserts and mesas of the American Southwest has sharply decreased since their unprecedented peak in 2023, the administration’s handling of border control remains a forefront concern for American citizens across each side of the political aisle. Republicans have championed border security as a legitimate concern for years, yet the lack of a permanent solution increasingly suggests that conservative politicians view border control not as an issue to be solved once and for all, but rather as a politically incentive campaign narrative used to drive fundraising, airtime and voter turnout at the ballot box come election time.

Border control was not always a partisan issue. The reforms put forth by President Reagan in 1986 and President Clinton’s legislation a decade later were both backed by a coalition of strong bipartisan support. It was not until the landscape of a post-9/11 America, dominated by well-founded concerns over national security, that border control became a uniquely partisan and polarizing issue.

The failure of President George W. Bush’s 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, backed by the leadership of (AZ) Senator John McCain and (MA) Senator Ted Kennedy, attributed to the politicization of border control and immigration reform as a whole. Bush’s legislation was met with fierce backlash from conservative politicians and media outlets alike. This criticism and outrage, combined with the rising influence of the Tea Party movement, contributed to the gradual shift towards a more restrictive and hardline border enforcement stance that would become enshrined as dogma during the 2016 campaign trail of President Trump. But if conservative politicians have echoed the need for a strong, secure border for well over a decade, why is the issue still so prevalent in 2026?

Rhetoric Over Results

We will secure the border. — Ted Cruz

“Securing the border” has become a mainstay on the campaign trails of both presidential hopefuls and seekers of congressional seats. Immigration and border security served as a cornerstone of Trump’s 2016 campaign, a message echoed by his opponents vying for the same nomination and reverberated by Republicans in the years that followed. Although statements about border security permeate the platforms and speeches of conservative politicians, actual legislation is inadequately absent in relation.

Rhetoric over border control is much easier to espouse than producing actual results, and is arguably more beneficial. Just not for American citizens. Ensuring the dilemma of border control remains unsolved allows politicians and candidates to use the issue as perpetual political petroleum to fuel their own campaigns. Unfortunately, it works.

The Border Act of 2024, a culmination of bipartisan negotiations with (OK) Senator James Lankford leading the Republican camp, offered a pathway for resolving the ongoing border crisis under the Biden Administration. Yet despite months of negotiating, the bill was blocked by Senate Republicans. Why? Congressional views towards the bill varied even amongst Republicans, but the blocking was largely the result of pressure from Trump to leave the issue unresolved as fodder for his upcoming presidential campaign. Trump’s actions were widely criticized by both President Biden and congressional Democrats. Republicans often accuse Democrats of politicizing policy for their own electoral gain, yet the irony of this double standard seems to fall upon deaf conservative ears at Capitol Hill.

The political incentives cut both ways. Campaigning on border control is a safe bet. Actually advocating for immigration reform can be politically fatal. (FL) Senator Marco Rubio’s involvement in the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration reform plan in 2013 garnered immediate backlash from conservative voters and politicians, with the “amnesty” prefix following his name to the GOP nominee stage in 2016. In 2014, then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat to a political outsider, whose campaign succeeded in part due to his condemnation of Cantor’s stance on immigration. To the detriment of the American people, rhetoric is simply more politically sound than actual results.

Political Performance Pays

Sustaining an ongoing “crisis at the border” does more than garner votes for conservative politicians; it drives fundraising and revenue for political campaigns. Ahead of his 2020 presidential campaign, Trump’s team emailed supporters asking for them to contribute to his “Official Secure The Border Fund”. Language pertaining to immigration and border control is widely used in mass text fundraising messaging, generating small dollar contributions that compound over time. Even independent efforts, such as the now defunct and defamed fraudulent “We Build The Wall” GoFundMe, illustrate how consistently border control rhetoric is used to generate donations from the pockets of American citizens.

The financial usefulness of a never-ending border crisis extends beyond direct fundraising and into the airwaves of broadcast networks and countless political advertisements. The use of imagery and prose pertaining to border control in campaign advertisements is especially prevalent in key elections years. In July of 2024 alone, Republican campaigns and affiliated groups spent upwards of $37 million on anti-immigrant advertisements, a figure that swelled to around $350 million by August of the same year.

With hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertisements relating to border control, and untold amounts of fundraising derived from the issue, border control seems to have shifted from a policy challenge to a concrete campaign asset. During the highwater mark of the immigration crisis under President Biden, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson led a congressional delegation in a press conference at Eagle Pass, Texas to address their growing concerns over the situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border. But if reality at the border was such a “catastrophe” as Johnson claimed, why did he pronounce that the Border Act of 2024 would be “dead on arrival” once it reached the House, only a few weeks after his visit to Eagle Pass? If President Biden’s touring of the southern border in Brownsville, Texas was dismissed by conservatives as a mere photo op, then Johnson’s visit and unwillingness to legislate in favor of performative outrage clearly fits the same bill.

Backing The Border

Conservative politicians have all but codified the issue of border control as a political and electoral force in their campaign playbooks. But how long can Republicans continue to employ the narrative of a border crisis, without offering some resemblance of a solution, before the rhetoric ceases to resonate with American voters?

If conservatives are truly the torchbearers of sovereignty, the rule of law, and limited government, then they must not only stand behind their slogans of securing the border, but carry the issue to its natural conclusion by enacting legislation and reforms to conclusively resolve the “crisis”. Whether that means reaching across the aisle to a bipartisan compromise, coalescing the complex myriad of agencies that handle immigration, or streamlining the process overall remains in question. What remains undoubtable is that it is high time for conservatives to campaign on proven policy, not just talking points regarding border control.

No one ever said untying the Gordian knot of border control and immigration policy would be easy. But it is necessary. In an era when the public’s trust in government is near an all time low, the need for politicians to stand behind the speeches and slogans of their campaign trail has never been higher. And it falls to conservative politicians to answer the call.

Truly backing the border may cost conservatives a campaign narrative, but the restored trust of the public and a complete resolution to campaign promises is priceless.