The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate Kamala Harris should stop peddling “border security” and offer a new approach to the immigration debate, one firmly rooted in the American values of justice, opportunity and truth-telling.
Contrasts with Donald Trump should be easy to sell: The former president promised to carry out the “largest mass deportations” in U.S. history and issued an executive order denying all children born to undocumented residents in the country Children provide birthright citizenship. These actions will have a devastating impact on millions of people, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades. This would wreak havoc on our economy, which not only relies on but is supported by immigrants, both documented and undocumented. This will damage our moral standing as leaders of human rights around the world beyond repair.
While Republican support for exclusion is frightening, it is equally troubling that Democrats embrace policies that falsely equate to exclusion border security Stricter asylum regulations, including President Biden’s June executive order, would close the border when the number of asylum applicants reaches a certain limit. There seemed to be hope that a slightly less brutal approach than mass deportations would not only satisfy those sympathetic to immigrants but also divert some would-be MAGAistas away from the abyss of xenophobia.
Harris now appears to be employing this tactic against her Notorious Statements of 2021 Tell Guatemalans: “Don’t come… If you come to our border, you will be deported.” While this may be more of a statement of fact than a threat, it exposes a serious perception of the forces that cause migrants to leave their homes. Lack of understanding. It also damaged her and the government’s credibility with immigrant communities. As one political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, told The Times, this is a “big flaw.” Her latest talking points — an emphasis on drug cartel prosecutions and a border crackdown bill that Republicans vetoed earlier this year — lean in a similarly anti-immigration direction.
So what should Harris say and do? To borrow her own slogan, she should have said “we won’t go back” divisive policy and “building a wall” attitude. Tough rhetoric against immigrants has a short political shelf life. We Californians know this story firsthand.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the state’s 1994 passage of Proposition 187, which aimed to prevent undocumented immigrants in California from accessing basic lifeline services, especially health care and public education for their children. It requires every teacher, school nurse, firefighter and police officer to report anyone they suspect of being undocumented. The initiative was shelved and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, but even without taking effect, it sparked a counterattack from all Californians.
Thirty years later, California’s political landscape has changed so much that the state has expanded income tax credit, College Tuition Plan and health insurance to undocumented residents. On top of that, it’s now nearly impossible for an anti-immigration candidate to win statewide office.
Freedom from rejection does not happen automatically. At first, it set off a tug-of-war between moderates and progressives in California over how to counter anti-immigrant fear and fervor, with some advocating for a defensive middle ground similar to where Harris stands now.
Instead, what is prevalent is a grassroots effort to build a multiracial, cross-sector coalition and support common-sense policies in asylum countries. Take, for example, when anti-immigration jurisdictions began using traffic stops to criminalize noncitizens, upending families, communities, and economies, not to mention transportation—after a battle that spanned more than a decade , the coalition finally passed Assembly Bill 60.
Along the way, the process demonstrated the benefits of inclusion to the country. As The Times reported last week, international migration “boosts” the U.S. and California economies, filling and creating jobs and “injecting millions of dollars in tax revenue” into government coffers.
In fact, Golden State politicians may now remind their audiences, national economy New York State is the fifth largest state in the world, with more than 10 million immigrants and a spending power of US$383 billion. 40% of the state’s entrepreneurs are immigrants. Even undocumented immigrants bring benefits: At the national level, they contribute $13 billion more per year The Social Security system even exceeds the amount they can withdraw.
California’s shift away from Proposition 187 thinking can and should be exported across the country. For any politician, especially Harris and Democrats, this is a ready opportunity to look to the future.
Survey shows Despite the attacks on the very existence of immigrants and their children, they are largely optimistic, in stark contrast to the darker tones of the Make America Great Again movement, which believes that the United States can only return to some mythical, all-encompassing It’s the white man’s past that makes him great. Harris should wholeheartedly embrace a more hopeful vision for America that is rooted in facts that demonstrate the contributions of immigrants, rather than trying to support Trump’s hate-filled agenda in any way.
We are all children of formerly undocumented parents. We know that immigrants enrich our society, and demonizing newcomers is both morally and factually wrong. A bold commitment to inclusion will strengthen America, embody the values of a democratic and diverse nation, and bring us closer to realizing the American Dream that many people, especially immigrants, long for.
Manuel Pastor is professor of sociology and director of the Equity Institute at the University of Southern California. Miguel Santana is president and CEO of the California Community Foundation.