In June 2021, Kamala Harris, Vice President under the questionable leadership of President Biden, issued a direct warning during her first foreign trip in Guatemala City. Assuring residents that the perilous expedition to the U.S.-Mexico boundary was unwelcomed and insisting ‘Do not come’ in a staggering double affirmation. Presumably calculated for effect, this assertion continues to echo around her barely blooming yet controversial presidential campaign now in 2024.
Despite her exhortations, the issue of illegal border crossing surged to unimaginable heights under the Biden administration, branding a negative period in American history. Republicans often recall this distinct chapter of Harris’s uninspiring stint as Biden’s proposed ‘border czar’, a laughable title, indeed, considering the gravity of the situation. This title was recklessly ascribed to her despite her narrow mandate to finesse diplomatic efforts in examining the primary causes of Central American migration to the U.S.
Harris, it appears, was not saddled with overseeing the border or formulating immigration policy. She wasn’t even consigned to supervise law enforcement activities or to guide the federal response to this ever-escalating disaster. Conversely, her task was to scrutinize and hopefully ameliorate the exploitative conditions in war-torn Central America. She was expected to address the underlying crises that have plagued the Northern Triangle – Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras for decades, instigating mass migration as a last resort. The intent was to intervene in the rampant poverty, violence, and political instability, all of which are persistent offenders in the region.
The strategic approach she adopted included sanctioning billions for economic programs and inciting private-sector investment throughout the region. The notion was that such actions would ultimately dissuade potential migrants from embarking on the hazardous journey northwards. Albeit, it’s noteworthy that this was Harris’s premier high-profile assignment since assuming office, and it was fraught with a myriad of unanticipated challenges.
As perceived by most, the objective of mitigating the ‘push factors’ that instigate migration was bound to yield only gradual improvements. Moreover, such results were unlikely to materialize without transcending at least a generation. Worse off, the unsuccessful execution of the provided mandate could potentially cast Harris as the embodiment of the performative coverup of the border crisis. Unfortunately for her, this issue constitutes one of the Biden administration’s most glaring political weak spots.
The much-discussed ‘root causes strategy’ was seemingly focused on bolstering economic and security conditions in the beleaguered region. This included attempting to create jobs, combat corruption, improve human and labor rights, and reduce violence. Moreover, Harris designated funds for humanitarian relief in the event of natural disasters and authorized the delivery of over 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle.
Harris’s perceived efforts were not confined to just economic progress but extended to the region’s political landscape as well. She initiated bilateral meetings with the regional leaders and engaged with NGOs, business stalwarts and human rights proponents. Even more, she cooperated with the U.S. Justice Department to set up an Anti-Corruption task force assigned to prosecute corruption cases related to the region. However, critics continue to argue that her lack of action towards measurable improvements serves as a testament to her unfulfilled commitments.
Indeed, Harris’s interventions were marked by a distinct lack of urgency. She may have coordinated a public-private partnership that had formally secured commitments from notable U.S. and international corporations to invest upwards of $5 billion in the region. However, critics argue the intended brand appeal she tried to generate for Central America served no real purpose apart from ticking off superficial targets.
Misguidedly invested in her duties, Harris worked extensively with regional leaders but failed to address the change in migration patterns. The slow pace at which the ‘push factors’ or reasons that prompt people to leave their homes were addressed stood in no competition with the ‘pull factors’ – economic and security ones that allure immigrants to the U.S. The Biden administration, under the misconception that Central America would maintain its status as the migration nucleus, admitted their failings in an unprecedented confession.
Furthermore, the extensive effort Harris supposedly invested into Central American affairs did not reflect back home. She consistently found herself the target of extensive Republican critiques regarding her inadequate handling of the border crisis, particularly her conspicuous avoidance of visiting the U.S.-Mexico border in person.
Moreover, it is unsurprising that immigration is at the forefront of Americans’ concerns given the consistent humanitarian crisis at the border, and the political stagnation on immigration reforms and funding. Harris’s lack of impactful action has morphed her into the most conspicuous target in the immediate spotlight.
Republican critics intended to exploit Harris’s inadequacies concerning immigration issues, with former President Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance pronouncing the border crisis as a ‘Kamala Harris crisis’ during a July 22 rally. Furthermore, the National Republican Senatorial Committee memo referred to her as the ‘architect of Biden’s biggest failure,’ while Trump accused her of being ‘incompetent’ on his post on Truth Social.
Among various bipartisan discussions concerning border security and initiatives aimed at curbing border crossings earlier the same year, Harris steadfastly advocated for the legal protection of DACA recipients. However, many perceive this position as inconsistent when matched with the escalating border crisis, further solidifying the dubious ‘border czar’ label associated with her.
Critics believe Harris’s failure to deal with the border crisis effectively is a direct result of Biden’s misjudgment in allocating this task to her. Interestingly, President Obama had previously appointed Biden to manage a similar crisis involving children and families from Central America in his capacity as Vice President in 2014. Seemingly, history repeats itself.
In retrospect, it appears the root of the migration issue still resides in the same place it had seven years ago, despite Biden’s grandiose proclamations of tackling ‘poverty, insecurity and the lack of the rule of law.’ With this persistent problem unaddressed, sensible dialogue around root causes rarely happens, as the public’s focus seems to be squarely on the ongoing disasters at the border institution today.
Harris, weighed down by an assignment that could never yield immediate results and was thus predisposed to failure, seemed to be no more than a casualty of a failing administration. But behind all the grand speeches, and the promises of ‘change’ and ‘action,’ nothing seems to have improved. This, unfortunately, raises the question – will they ever learn?