That’s the claim of The Wall Street Journal news room writers.

Republicans exaggerated her role to label the vice president as “border czar,” though her initiative was much narrower.

They also claim that Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ DOC was working with Northern Triangle nations to reduce the illegal alien flood. That last, not so much. Here’s Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s own statement announcing his appointment of Harris to the post:

I’ve asked her, the VP, today—because she’s the most qualified person to do it—to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help—are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.

Not just the Triangle nations—included in Harris’ portfolio are Mexico, which is our southern border and those “countries…going to need help,” which are the aggregated origin of all of the illegal aliens flooding across our southern border.

Regarding the title—label if you prefer—Border Czar, Andrew Arthur, writing shortly after Harris’ appointment in a piece for the Center for Immigration Studies, noted

the executive branch has used the term loosely for almost 60 years to describe an official with a portfolio that includes the duties of other officials.

That’s hardly a current, Republican, creation. Instead, here’s the press, specifically, the New York Post, just two weeks after her appointment. First, the headline:

Where is Kamala? Two weeks since being named border czar, Harris still hasn’t visited

And in the body:

Instead, in her first two weeks as czar, she has traveled….

And NBC News, referring to Harris’ immediate predecessor:

In a statement Friday announcing that Roberta Jacobson, Biden’s border czar who has played a key role….

And so on.

Maybe the WSJ needs to get a new crop of interns for its newsroom research function. Or more accurate writers.

This is excerpted from the ACLU questionnaire that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris filled out the last time she ran for President (via Just the News):

6. Will you commit to ending the use of ICE detainers?
Yes X No⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): Throughout my career, I have made it clear that law enforcement should use their time and resources to keep communities safe, not act as federal immigration agents. It’s also important that law enforcement build trust with the communities they are sworn to protect—acting as de facto immigration officers erodes this trust. As Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers. As president I will focus enforcement on increasing public safety, not tearing apart immigrant families. This includes requiring ICE to obtain a warrant where probable cause exists as to end the use of detainers.

This is nonsense. ICE detainers in no way convert police into immigration officers. The detainers merely ask police, who have already arrested the individual(s), to notify ICE that the police have the individual, so ICE can pick him up at the jail or on release by the police. The ICE agents respond promptly; there’s no call, by the detainer, to hold the individual longer.

10. Will you work to stop states from shutting down abortion providers by urging Congress to pass and signing into law the Women’s Health Protection Act? If yes, how will you take a leadership role in advancing this legislation at the national level?
Yes X No ⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): I am a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and will fight to sign it into law as president. As President, protecting the right to reproductive healthcare services will be one of my top priorities and I will fight to stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect. That’s why I have a plan to require states with a history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion to pre-clear any new law or practice with the Justice Department before it can be enacted. We have to fight back against this all out assault on reproductive rights. Women have agency and they have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. My administration won’t leave them to fight alone.

This is wrong on a number of levels. Most basic is the error embedded in the ACLU’s question and carried through by Harris’ response: there’s not a minim of concern for protection of the baby, only concern for the woman’s “right” to kill the baby for no better reason than she wants to.

Secondly the history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion is nonsense. There is not, and there never has been, a constitutionally based access to abortions. There has only been a Supreme Court generated access, and that has been rescinded by the Court so the matter can be returned to the States and to each State’s citizens so those citizens can decide for themselves the degree of access. And that’s where the matter should be.

Thirdly, the requirement for States to say “Mother may I” to the Federal government is an active and blatant attack on the federal structure of our nation and our nation’s governance.

There are other such…errors…in Harris’ questionnaire, many of which are variations on a theme, as well as some on separate subjects.

These, though, are Harris’ indelibly stated extreme positions, no matter her current rhetoric—which no less a light than Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has said are just words convenient to her effort to get elected, and in no way are to be taken seriously.

That’s the only term for the Biden-Harris White House stonewalling of a Fox News FOIA request for the identification of the nationalities of the illegal aliens that those two are allowing into our nation via their open-borders policy. Fox News isn’t even asking for by-name data, just aggregated. Speaking through their Customs and Border Protection manager mouthpiece, though, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden and his Progressive-Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris are claiming—and they’re serious about this:

Releasing data for a particular nationality, or nationalities, that reflect a small number of individuals could lead to identification, especially by organizations familiar with the individuals.

And

The privacy interests of third parties (being protected from public disclosure because they could conceivably be subject to harassment and annoyance in his/her private life) far outweigh whatever public interest, if any, exists in having their information released.

This rationalization is a crock in two ways. One is that Biden-Harris are holding up identification of all nationalities because only a few illegal aliens, they claim, are of particular nationalities.

Another crock is the beef that the illegal aliens might be identified. They need to be identified so they can be gathered up and deported for their illegal entry, for their beginning their presence here with breaking our laws.

Biden and Harris also have it precisely backward in counting those third party privacy interests as more important than the public interest. We have a right to know who and what party(s) are aiding and abetting illegal aliens and by extension—intended or not—aiding and abetting human traffickers moving these illegal aliens. These third parties, along with such traffickers as can be identified and caught, need to be hauled into court and held criminally liable for their status as accessories to these crimes.

We also have a right to know who these third parties are so we can have a chance to assess the amount of our tax monies that is being used to support these illegal aliens and those third parties.

And this bit of cynical disingenuousity:

If such an organization were to move ‘X’ number of operatives of one nationality over the relevant period, and the disclosed nationality numbers were substantially lower than X, the terrorist organization could infer a large percentage of its operatives from a particular nationality have been able to move undetected (thereby minimizing the deterrent effect of the TSDS)[.]
…
This information could allow bad actors to reverse engineer effective countermeasures to facilitate undetected movement and activity and thwart CBP interdiction efforts[.]

The terrorist organizations and the cartels operating in Mexico already know these data. They already know who they’ve moved in and who’s been caught; this tells them how successful they are in their trafficking. To the extent the administration is serious with this claim, they’re simply projecting their own inability to conduct serious intel operations regarding who or what is coming across our border and where they’re going once inside.

This is the level of cynicism, or of incompetence, or both, that is rampant in the Biden-Harris administration and in Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ border policy.