On Friday, the Kamala Harris campaign presented what they consider a winning strategy on immigration and border issues. From this corner, it appears that their interpretation of a ‘strong’ attitude is simply a push-back against Trump’s hardline stance towards illegal immigration, with particular distaste for Trump’s language. While Harris is promising more rigidity in border security during her speech in Douglas, Arizona, it begs the question whether this is more political posturing rather than a real policy solution.
The Democratic nominee, shockingly, guaranteed to reinstate the bipartisan border bill, which is a focal point of contention for many. Harris, indicating she would sign the bill if she becomes President, might not have realised the depth of issues involved in this. This rhetoric contrasts markedly with her previous discourse, which suggests a somewhat desperate attempt to appease a range of voters at the expense of policy consistency.
Whilst stating ‘the U.S. is a sovereign nation’, she bizarrely stresses her belief in imposing border rules and procedures. A curious u-turn perhaps, considering her party’s historical approach to border security. The vice president also adamantly insisted on enforcing these rules, which seems to prove how desperately Democrats might be clutching at straws in search for voter support.
In a somewhat surprising twist, she criticises Trump’s opposition to a bipartisan border security bill. According to her, this bill would have increased resources for border agents and law enforcement, such as funding for inspection machines to catch fentanyl. Nevertheless, the criticisms don’t hold up, as they conveniently leave out the consideration that Trump’s reason to block it was to seek a holistic solution, rather than an incomplete patchwork.
Despite all this, it’s worth noting that voters still have more faith in Trump to deal with immigration effectively. Evidently, this disconnect is not surprising considering the Democrats’ haphazard approach to this issue, which is particularly noticeable in pro-border-security Arizona.
There is some data showing a decrease in encounters at ports of entry, but this should hardly be considered a victory for Harris. Is this simply the result of tougher stances on border security from the Trump administration? Or could it be due to the economic impact of the pandemic scaring off those who would typically undertake such a dangerous journey?
Even as Harris promises to ‘protect our nation’s sovereignty and secure our border’, she proposes to fix the ‘broken’ system of immigration through partnerships with all political parties. It’s important, though, to remember that both parties have historically struggled to address crisis at the border, showing the limitations of such rhetoric.
Past performances indicate that neither party has done a thorough job engaging with immigration, a fact that showcases their lack of understanding or willingness to address the root cause of this persistent crisis.
The economy and immigration are pivotal issues for many voters on the sidelines, enough to tip the vote. Despite this, Harris seems to offer little more than a lukewarm, ‘balanced approach’, which is merely a vague promise that lacks real, tangible solutions.
She talks about keeping families together and opposes the threat of mass deportations, but fails to consider the complex realities of immigration. Ironically, her stance seems to only perpetuate historic patterns of separation, rather than forging a path towards resolution.
In the end, Harris’s strategy on immigration seems to be a cocktail of popular talking points rather than a concrete, thought-out plan. Ridiculing the Trump administration whilst promising some of the same hardline policies highlights a confused and inconsistent approach that isn’t likely to gain the confidence of voters.
As election day nears, Harris’ approach reveals an unsettling disregard for the realities of the current immigration system. Instead of proposing meaningful reforms, she seems content to rest on sentiment and appeals that might sound good on a campaign stage, but provide little in terms of real-world policy.
Harris’s strategy on immigration attempts to strike a delicately poised balance. From promising tough policies one moment to appealing to progressive ideals the next, it’s clear her plan is running on borrowed time. And it’s even clearer voters deserve better.
Harris’s campaign appears to be struggling to maintain its shaky stand on immigration and border security. Perhaps the hope is that lofty promises and negative rhetoric towards Trump’s policies will be enough to secure votes. However, voters may be left wondering whether this kind of political posturing is truly in the best interest of American security.