Kamala Harris’s recent speech in Arizona on border security has raised more questions than answers about her stance on immigration. Despite her attempts to sound tough on the issue, her past positions and legislative record suggest a more lenient approach. Harris’s views on immigration enforcement, in particular, have been shaped by her time in the Senate, where she advocated for a more civil approach to immigration violations.
In 2018, Harris argued that immigration violations should not be treated as a criminal offense, but rather a civil issue. This stance is at odds with the current administration’s efforts to enforce immigration laws. Furthermore, Harris’s support for re-examining the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and potentially abolishing it has raised concerns about her commitment to border security.
Harris’s legislative record also raises red flags. In 2020, she co-sponsored a bill that would have suspended immigration enforcement in the United States during public health emergencies, national emergencies, or global pandemics declared by the World Health Organization. This bill would have effectively outsourced immigration policy to an international body, undermining national sovereignty.
Moreover, Harris’s support for a bill creating a new category of “climate-displaced persons” admitted into the country has sparked concerns about the potential for unchecked immigration. The bill would have allowed the president to admit an unlimited number of individuals, without a hard-and-fast cap, following consultations with Congress, as with the current refugee program.
Harris’s history of lenient immigration proposals has led some to question whether she truly believes in national borders. Her attempts to distance herself from her past stances on issues like private health insurance have not alleviated concerns about her commitment to border security.
Rather than trying to downplay her past positions, Harris should be pressed to clarify her views on immigration enforcement and national sovereignty. Why does she support giving an international organization a veto over America’s immigration enforcement? How many climate refugees would she support bringing to the United States, and from where? Would she link the number of climate refugees admitted to decarbonization efforts, forcing Republicans to support green-energy initiatives and climate regulations?
The controversy surrounding Harris’s role as “border czar” is not just about her title, but about her policies and whether she believes in the importance of national borders.
