During her tenure as Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris carried out significant efforts against the smugglers of humans and narcotics. This element of her life story is not often focused on. Nevertheless, those supportive of Vice President Kamala Harris argue that her prior involvement in countering smuggling across borders provides insights into her potential approach to current issues impacting the southern border. The Vice President has exemplified her experience in fighting criminal organizations that were engaged in smuggling drugs, firearms, and people across the U.S.-Mexico border during her period serving as California’s top law enforcement officer.
She reiterated during a Nevada town hall, ‘As the leading law enforcement official in the country’s largest state, a border state, California, I challenged transnational criminal organizations.’ It is suggested by her advocates and supporters that her efforts against transnational crime can be indicative of her strategy to address border challenges. With President Biden’s tenure witnessing a surge in illicit border crossings and ex-President Trump and his backers promoting misleading narratives regarding immigrant crime, border-related issues have dominated voters’ concerns.
However, Harris’s record of prosecuting cross-border crime has not been exempt from critical examination and misrepresentation. Today, she refrains from endorsing certain tactics she had previously supported. This article explores the actions she undertook as Attorney General of California, their significance, and their potential influence should she triumph in the forthcoming election. One of the key changes in her strategy during her time as the AG involved focusing on tackling transnational crime from the early stages of her 2010 campaign and throughout her six years in the role.
From the outset, she sought a transformative approach towards handling criminal operations along interstate pathways, by assembling federal officials and state attorneys, and by conceptualizing multi-agency task forces that worked collaboratively with counterparts in Mexico and Latin America. These coordinated efforts led to successes in large-scale arrests within the drug trafficking industry and seizures of substantial quantities of narcotics and other illicit traded goods.
A recollection by former and present California prosecutors points towards the restricted resources and the lack of case-related interaction occurring before Harris’s entry into office. The initial approach was majorly focused on capturing small-scale dealers who were quickly substituted in the street markets. This resulted in these law enforcement departments being overwhelmed by the rapidly expanding criminal organizations with international ties that diversified their illicit operations beyond drug trade, these groups have both Latin American and Asian connections.
‘We were occupied in a repetitive cycle,’ stated Cristine Soto DeBerry, once chief of staff to district attorneys in San Francisco and currently leading a non-profit organization, the Prosecutors Alliance of California, dedicated to reforming the criminal justice system. Several notable cases pursued by Harris, as noted by her associates, involved the dismantling of cocaine and methamphetamine networks linked to Mexican cartels and a lethal opioid-pushing operation. These successful busts are frequently referenced by her in her campaigns.
Running on the most conservative border and immigration platform seen from a Democrat in years, Harris uses her experience with these cases. She has promised to increase governmental resources for the prosecution and extradition of transnational criminal organization members, impose stricter charges against repeated illegal border crossers, and invest more in personnel, training, and surveillance at the border. Concurrently, she has promised to expedite legal paths for citizenship, asylum, and other migrant statuses.
Lawmakers and prosecutors who have followed Harris’s career see her efforts to balance firmness with compassion on border issues, similar to her broader approach towards criminal justice. Harris was known not only for her stern action against violent criminals but also for seeking out resources for victims, experimenting with reforms for less severe crimes, and making strides across party lines.
Michael A. Ramos, a former district attorney from San Bernardino County, built a friendship with Harris during her prosecutor days in the Bay Area. He credits her with increasing state funds for witness protection programs and shifting the focus of law enforcement from mere incarceration to protection of communities, especially for young girls and women involved in the sex trade.
Republicans and Trump supporters criticize Harris’s approach towards leniency for nonviolent offenders, falsely linking it to dangerous undocumented immigrants’ release. On the other hand, some Democrats and immigrant rights representatives express concerns about over-conservatism regarding intersecting issues of crime, immigration, and border control.
Some Democrats saw her criminal justice background as a potential liability during her run for the Democratic nomination in 2019. Harris’s work brought her face-to-face with the fight against fentanyl and transnational crime. However, the nature of the cases brought forward debates around law enforcement practices, which were warned against by progressive Democrats and activists as leading to racial profiling and violation of civil rights.
The Harris campaign avoided answering questions about her backing of certain controversial law enforcement methods as a presidential candidate. As Attorney General, she endorsed the use of cellphone surveillance technology for scanning multiple data forms, first revealed by an investigative news outlet, Reveal, in 2015. The Justice Department spokesperson mentioned the requirement of search warrants for the tool’s use but did not offer a copy of its written policy.
Simultaneously, Harris lent her support to a bill enabling California law enforcement to seize personal property before criminal charges were filed. Her argument was to prevent transnational gangs from selling off their assets. This strategy, ‘civil asset forfeiture’, faced criticism from both civil rights activists and libertarians.
Yet, supporters of the bill argued that it was designed to focus solely on significant criminals due to the required minimum asset value of $10,000, which was later increased to $100,000. Jeff Tsai, who had advised Harris on transnational crime, argued the bill contained protections against civil right violations including judicial reviews of seizures and proof of imminent criminal charges.
Although the fiscal analysis of the bill predicted more work for trial courts, it never reached the vote. In the following year, the California legislature reversed course and put restrictions on civil asset forfeiture. The scrutiny that Harris’s record of prosecuting cross-border crime is undergoing presents a perspective on the potential strategies she could employ should she win the election.