Kamala Harris's Achilles' Heel: The Southern Border Crisis and Its Political Implications

 

Kamala Harris's immigration stance changes faster than a chameleon in a paint factory, and Republicans are having a field day pointing out her latest shade of policy inconsistency.

Kamala Harris's political career has been marked by a series of evolving stances on immigration, which now present her with significant challenges as she aims for the presidency. The southern border crisis has become her most daunting political liability, primarily due to her historical flip-flopping on immigration policies. This inconsistency is being leveraged by her opponents, particularly Republicans, to undermine her credibility and effectiveness on this crucial issue.

Harris's track record on immigration is complex and reflects her shifting political ambitions. As the District Attorney of San Francisco, she endorsed a policy that required law enforcement to refer undocumented juveniles to immigration authorities. This tough-on-crime stance aligned her with more conservative viewpoints, a position that later clashed with her progressive aspirations.

During her tenure as California's Attorney General, Harris collaborated with federal authorities to combat drug trafficking, further cementing her tough stance on immigration-related crime. However, her position evolved significantly as she eyed the presidency. Reacting to the Trump administration's harsh immigration policies, which included family separations and children in detention, Harris adopted a more progressive tone. She suggested critically re-examining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and even considered its abolition. Furthermore, she supported government-provided healthcare for undocumented immigrants and proposed civil penalties for illegal border crossings instead of criminal ones. These progressive stances became fodder for Republican attack ads, painting her as inconsistent and overly lenient on immigration.

As Vice President, Harris was tasked by President Biden with addressing the "root causes" of migration from Central America. This role, however, has not yielded substantial progress and has often been criticized for its lack of immediacy in addressing the border crisis. Harris's involvement in the region's development, democracy, and rule of law initiatives has been minimal compared to Biden's own efforts as Vice President. She has visited Central America only twice, in stark contrast to Biden's 14 visits during his tenure. Although she secured over $5.2 billion from private companies to promote development in the region, the tangible impacts on migration remain limited.

Harris's political opponents, particularly Republicans, have seized on her perceived failures. In July 2023, House Republicans, along with six Democrats, passed a resolution condemning her for not securing the border. Former President Donald Trump has been particularly vocal, predicting that a Harris presidency would exacerbate the "invasion" at the southern border, leading to the nation's destruction. This rhetoric resonates with a significant portion of the electorate; a poll by The Economist and YouGov indicated that 14% of registered voters view immigration as the most pressing issue, second only to inflation.

The southern border crisis has indeed escalated during the Biden administration, with nearly 2.5 million apprehensions in the fiscal year 2023, setting a record. Although these encounters have decreased by more than half since their peak in December 2022, thanks to increased enforcement and a June 2023 executive order tightening asylum processes, the issue remains a potent political weapon for her adversaries.

Harris's approach to immigration has often seemed reactive rather than proactive, aligning with the prevailing political winds. Her initial hardline stance softened considerably during her presidential campaign, reflecting a broader Democratic shift towards more humane immigration policies. Yet, as Vice President, her efforts to address the root causes of migration have been criticized as insufficient and disconnected from the immediate needs at the border.

Historically, the "root causes" strategy aimed at addressing issues in the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) has been more about long-term solutions rather than immediate fixes. This approach, however, is becoming increasingly outdated as the southern border sees a more diverse influx of migrants from countries such as Ecuador, China, India, and Turkey. The global nature of current migration patterns renders the "root causes" strategy less effective and underscores the need for more comprehensive and adaptable immigration policies.

Harris's political future hinges on her ability to navigate this complex issue. She must convince voters that she has a viable plan to manage the southern border crisis while differentiating herself from Trump's draconian policies. Potential strategies include emphasizing her dual approach of enforcement and creating legal pathways for undocumented migrants, mirroring her own life story as the child of immigrants.

Moreover, Harris's consideration of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona as a running mate could bolster her stance on border security. Kelly, who has consistently advocated for increased border security, might help Harris appeal to more moderate voters and those directly affected by the border crisis.

Without putting it in so many words, Kamala Harris's fluctuating positions on immigration, driven by her political ambitions, have created a significant vulnerability in her campaign. Her record reveals a tendency to shift stances in response to the political climate, which Republicans have adeptly exploited. Addressing the southern border crisis effectively will be crucial for her to overcome this liability and present herself as a credible leader on immigration. Her ability to balance enforcement with humanitarian principles, while addressing the diverse and global nature of current migration trends, will be key to her political success.