Guatemala’s Kamala Harris searches for the root cause of the migration boom. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
Even if Kamala Harris loses this crazy close election, there is little doubt that it will be largely due to public dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the economy and immigration issues (Trump campaign Despite making big bets that it’s weird and mean (for prominent ads of hate attacks against transgender people). Instead of noting and approving of the recent improvement in the economy and the virtual collapse of inflation, voters of all persuasions appear to mistakenly remember the Trump era as being immeasurably more prosperous. It’s certainly frustrating for Democrats.
Similarly, Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden have received little credit for significantly reducing border crossings by migrants in recent months. But it’s pretty hard to argue, as Nate Silver claims, that Democrats haven’t mishandled the border situation.
The number of southern border crossings increased significantly during the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration…although some of that can be attributed to a strong labor market during the post-COVID-19 recovery. , the policy changes enacted by Biden are also directly responsible for much of it.
Mr. Harris is closely connected to this issue. Liberals don’t like the term “border czar,” but Biden appointed her to lead the response at the southwest border.
As a 2019 presidential candidate, Harris articulated a series of very liberal policies on the border, including raising her hand in the first debate when asked if she supported health care for undocumented workers. was included, as were other Democrats, including Biden.
And this comes at a time when there is a huge global backlash against immigration, even in Canada, which is famously immigrant-friendly.
I would like to dispute Mr. Silver’s assertion that Ms. Harris had a leading role in responding to the situation at the southern border. Her mission, which appears to have been short-lived, was to investigate the “root causes” of the immigration boom in Latin America, which had little to do with border policy itself. But either way, we are in the situation we are in now, and the Biden administration has opted for policy changes that reduce pressure on the border and increase deportations. Harris also has a plausible rebuttal to the claim that Trump is the savior of the border if she focuses on Trump’s obstruction of bipartisan legislation that includes many of the policy changes that Republicans have supported. You can do it.
But Harris is certainly on the defensive on immigration, and her problems are summed up in the polling trends highlighted in the last national poll by The New York Times and Siena. There is. Despite her uphill battles, she is struggling with voters who prioritize tougher immigration policies. To reach Biden’s 2020 level of support among Latino voters. One of Harris’ political responsibilities is to consistently take a tough stance on immigration, emphasizing her background in law enforcement as a prosecutor fighting cartels south of the border. It is becoming increasingly clear that efforts to increase Latino understanding of their policies may be hampered. He has different values than Trump. If she wasn’t so keen on becoming Cop Kamala, she’d take advantage of concerns (among Latinos and others) about what President Trump would do to carry out his “mass deportation” promise. , you’re probably making a lot of money.
First, as Christian Paz explains in Vox, polls show majority support for “mass deportation,” but they don’t translate into contradictory impulses in public opinion.
A significant percentage of voters appear to be in favor of increasing deportations. Some may wish for a strategy in which Mr. Trump is floating. But many also want exceptions and protections for certain immigrant groups who have lived in the United States for some time or have other ties to the United States.
Attacking the indiscriminate nature of the “mass deportation” promise, especially in the hands of confirmed xenophobes like President Trump’s chief immigration adviser Stephen Miller, could sway Harris among voters of all stripes. It may bring some benefit. However, continued efforts to warn Latinos about the discrimination and harassment they will face due to the racial and ethnic profiling that inevitably accompanies efforts to identify and round up 11 million people in the country illegally , there could be even more potential trouble for Trump. immigration. Worse, if Trump wins on the back of his handling of immigration, he will have every incentive to make his mass deportation efforts as harsh and racist as possible, says Ron. Brownstein points out.
It is difficult to overstate the significance of President Trump’s strong support among Latino immigrants while emphasizing mass deportation as a cornerstone of his domestic policy. Perhaps he (and Miller) will interpret a victory as evidence that there are no political constraints on pushing for maximum deportation (along with concentration camps).
All of these implications should be a fair strategy for the Harris campaign to sow doubts about President Trump’s immigration policies. But we don’t hear much about it, likely because her campaign made a strategic decision to avoid the topic altogether, other than to emphasize her strong spirit and credibility with law enforcement. . This is a lost opportunity, and one that could hurt the vice president and the entire country if he loses.
See all
Sign up for the Intelligencer Newsletter
Daily news about politics, business and technology shaping our world.
Vox Media, LLC Terms of Use and Privacy Notice
