'The Interview': James Lankford Tried to Solve Immigration for the GOP

Senator James Lankford has a rich history in faith-based service and applies his deeply held Christian beliefs to his political career and daily life.

Senator Lankford has a long history of faith-based service and engagement with his community

For 22 years, Lankford worked in ministry, serving middle school and high school students, before he felt called to run for Congress. His decision to enter politics was a departure from his previous life, where he had only been engaged as a voter. Despite initial skepticism from state Republican leaders and friends, he pursued politics driven by a strong conviction.

Lankford's faith is deeply integrated into his worldview and heavily influences his political stances and interactions

Lankford explains that his faith isn't something he takes off and puts on; it affects everything about him, including how he treats others—even those with whom he disagrees politically. His belief that every person is created in the image of God informs his approach to interaction and policy-making. His worldview impacts how he navigates various issues, including immigration, where he balances his Christian duty of welcoming the stranger with concerns regarding national security and humanitarian challenges at the border.

Lankford cites the story of Nehemiah and his own ministry background as examples of how his faith influences his attitude and decision-making. He seeks God's direction on how to help others and better the nation, paralleling his actions to those of Nehemiah.

Lankford emphasizes the importance of respecting others' right to hold different faiths or no faith at all

Senat ...

Senator James Lankford was chosen by Senate leadership, notably Mitch McConnell, to negotiate a bipartisan immigration bill, engaging with Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Chris Murphy for months to create a viable compromise.

Bipartisan Efforts and Crafted Compromise

Lankford, Sinema, and Murphy started negotiations late the previous year. This bipartisan bill was unique, gaining approval from Senate leaders of both parties and an endorsement from the White House, elevating it to a potential first major immigration legislation in decades.

Key Features of the Bill

Lankford emphasized that the bill focused on current pressing immigration issues over deferred ones. The bill did not include a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, as Lankford believed it risked Republican support. Instead, the bill aimed to address the immediate concern of illegal crossings and the backlog of cases, with an understanding that DACA and other issues would be revisited later.

Compromises and Concessions

Democrats agreed to work on aspects of national security, which was a significant concession, especially from Murphy, who understood its importance. Lankford noted his recognition of the need to act on national security threats, with his Intelligence and Homeland Security committees positions informing the urgency. The bill's immediate focus was to slow the high volume of illegal crossings.

Negotiation Process Involving Diverse Perspectives

The negotiation process entailed in-depth dialogue and compromise among the senators. Sinema brought her immigration attorney experience and Arizona context to the discussions, while Murphy brought a national security perspective. Lankford felt the negotiation could ...

The bill, which aligned with many Republican policy goals, failed due to a lack of GOP support after former President Donald Trump voiced his opposition, primarily because it could have given Democrats a victory on immigration during an election year.

Despite the bipartisan group's efforts and the bill's alignment with many Republican policy goals, it ultimately failed to gain enough GOP support after former President Trump came out against it.

Senator James Lankford believed the immigration bill had a chance of passing and noted that it contained most of the hardline policies the right wanted. However, Trump's disapproval turned GOP sentiment against the bill, and only four Republican senators voted for it, leading to its defeat. Lankford recalls the bill seemed likely to pass until Trump opposed it. He intentionally avoided talking to Trump during this period to prevent the bill from being seen as influenced by him, as that could repel Democrat colleagues.

Lankford faced pressure from conservative commentators and Trump allies who threatened to "destroy" him if he supported the bill, as they prioritized maintaining the immigration issue as a political wedge for the 2022 election.

Lankford received threats from a right-wing commentator who supported Trump over him, sating Lankford if he backed the immigration bill. Political commentators and Trump allies sought to keep immigration as a key issue for the 2022 election, with some opposing the resolution of border issues out of concern it might politically benefit President Biden ahead of the election.

Lankford believes the bill could have passed if it had been brought to a vote in December 2021, before the Republican primary season heated up, but by February 2022 the political dynamics had shifted to make it untenable.

Lankford speculates that the bill would have succeeded if voted on in December. But by February, with the onset of the presidential primary election season and the focus on the Republican primary, the political dynamics had shifted, rendering the bill untenable. Furthermore, when Senator Schumer brought up the bill again two months after the first vote as a politcal exercise, not a genuine effort to pass it, Lankford voted against it.

Lankford discusses the practicalities of immigration policies, stressing that a future Trump administration would not likely att ...

In an in-depth discussion with Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Senator Lankford delves into the frustrations and challenges he faces in trying to legislate within a highly partisan environment, particularly reflecting on the recent breakdown of immigration bill negotiations.

Sen. Lankford recalls his early experience of working with a new senator in 2017, a time when he found common ground despite wide policy disagreements. Lankford reflects on how, despite these differences, they managed rigorous conversations and found some areas of agreement. Lankford notes that while his constituents in Oklahoma often express an inability to work with those he works with due to their statements on TV, he emphasizes the importance of working together in Congress because there are critical issues that need attention.

Lankford's acknowledgment of political realities

Lankford expresses his commitment to policy discussions, especially when dealing with complicated issues like immigration. He acknowledges that immigration reform has been a persistently difficult challenge and that it has remained unsolved for decades. Despite the escalation of noise and opposition that peaked in the first week of February and the political commentators framing the immigration issue as a critical factor for the upcoming elections, he continued working on the bill, recognizing the necessity to get something done.

However, Lankford ultimately realized that a bipartisan bill on immigration would not be feasible. He anticipates future discussions and actions concerning mass deportations while acknowledging the public frustration with the immigration system and the range of opinions within the GOP on immigration policy.

Challenges to substantive legislative engagement

Garcia-Navarro highlights issues related to the reluctance of legislators to engage with detailed policies, pointing out that many colleagues wouldn't read the immigration bill due to its length and technical nature. This reluctance reflects a trend where politics overshadows the substance of policy, underscoring a challenge in the current political climate where the commitment to engage in substantive legislative work seems to diminish.

Lankfor ...