I don't think I get any money from open borders. I'd guess I'd benefit more from a militarized border.
I'm not treating this as an open-border problem. I don't care if they change the rules about use of force to defend the borders. I do care IF BP agents are violating rules of engagement or targeting people they think they are illegal for improper treatment. That is what they are CHARGED with.
So for me, it's a matter of whether the facts support the charges or not, and that's all I really care about. I don't buy that people are lying to open the borders, but that doesn't mean people couldn't get the facts wrong.
For example, I don't think DHS was "lying". Maybe they were. I think it more likely that the word was passed up the chain of command that certain documents existed, such that by the time they got to the guy at the top he knew they had the information he said they had.
When it was requested, he sent the request down, and started getting odd responses, and people were covering their butts as they do in a beaurocracy, and eventually he came to the conclusion that what he was told before was wrong.
I don't think he walked into a congressman's office and made up lies in the hopes he wouldn't get caught. It COULD have happened, but it's so easy to see the same results from simply looking at the organization and understanding how communication is screwed up.
So at the moment, I still believe all the statements made were true, but there doesn't appear to be any documentation which says so (I also leave open the possibility that the new statement is inaccurate, or that the story was reported not entirely accurately).