It’s not been any secret that Joe Biden’s approval numbers have been justifiably crashing during the fiasco in Afghanistan and many Democrats are getting nervous about what these shifts in the polls could portend for next year. That means that the loyal Democratic transcriptionists in the press corps need to find something to at least try to balance the narrative. This weekend we seem to be seeing at least one of those efforts taking shape. A report yesterday from the Associated Press seeks to paint a picture of a Republican Party that’s growing divided over the issue of bringing Afghan translators and helpers to the United States as the final collapse of Kabul nears completion.

The short version is probably just what you would expect. Some Republicans want to help those helpers who were loyal to us while others don’t want to import a bunch of potential terrorists. Former President Trump has unwittingly aided the Democrats in building this narrative. At one event he said, “civilians and others who have been good to our Country … should be allowed to seek refuge.” But at a later event, he asked the question, “How many terrorists will Joe Biden bring to America?” The obvious failure of this narrative, of course, is found in the fact that a reasonable person can espouse both of those concerns simultaneously without any actual contradiction.

As Republicans level blistering criticism at Biden during his first major foreign policy crisis, some are turning to the nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric perfected by Trump during his four years in office. It’s causing dismay among others in the party who think the U.S. should look out for those who helped the Americans over the last two decades.

“I think these false narratives that these are a bunch of terrorists are just — they’re completely baseless in reality,” said Olivia Troye, a former White House homeland security adviser who currently serves as director of the Republican Accountability Project. “There’s no basis for this at all in terms of the intelligence and national security world.”

Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster, said the rhetoric reflects “a general, overall increase” in concern in the country over the risk of terrorist threats after Afghanistan’s fall to the Taliban — not just in the short term from those who may not have been properly vetted, but a year or two down the road.

You can see the Democratic Party line taking shape here. The implication is that the really hard-core xenophobes in the GOP hate all immigrants so they don’t even want to allow the Afghans who helped us into the country. The rest of the Republicans who are only mostly racist, are willing to make exceptions for the translators. Thus there is a civil war shaping up among the racists.

Talk about a bunch of malarkey. Just like people from any other country, Afghans seeking a chance to flee the onslaught of the resurgent Taliban will need to be properly vetted before being fully welcomed into the United States through a special visa or any other immigration program. The special circumstances involved, however, mean that many of them will likely either have to be held in third countries while they are vetted or, in some cases, at facilities in the United States. Well-trusted translators who served us faithfully for several years probably could go in the latter category.

At the same time, there is massive confusion reigning over the situation in Kabul at the moment. A flood of humanity crashing at the gates is clearly composed of many legitimately frightened Afghans seeking safety. But mixed in among them, there are no doubt bad actors who are loyalists to either the Taliban, al Qaeda, or ISIS. We shouldn’t doubt for a moment that some might see this as an opportunity to blend in with the crowd and find an easy way to infiltrate America.

We saw the same problem with the Afghan army that we spend decades training. Most often when there was a sudden attack with firearms or a suicide bomber, it was someone who had infiltrated the ranks of their own army. This isn’t paranoia or xenophobia. It’s just history.

So this doesn’t represent some massive schism among conservatives. It’s perfectly legitimate to feel a loyalty to those Afghans who helped us and trusted that we would take care of them in the long run. And it’s also completely valid to want to ensure that we’re not letting any radical Islamic bad apples slip in through the side door during a time of crisis and mass migration. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest and poor journalism.