The Republican Party is lying He called Kamala Harris Joe Biden’s “border czar” and criticized her for reducing migrant border crossings, a label Donald Trump used during last week’s debate amid a string of hateful and false rants about immigrants.
In practice, Harris’s role has largely been limited to addressing the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras through a task force focused on corruption and smuggling, and working with the private sector to expand economic opportunities. While this increased collaboration is generally viewed favorably by immigration advocates, Harris’s focus on deterrence-based policies at the border has drawn criticism. As a Democratic candidate, she supported Joe Biden’s bipartisan immigration bill, which specifically allows the Department of Homeland Security to suspend most asylum access outside ports of entry once border contacts reach a certain level.
Overall, I think she would take a much more humane approach to immigration.
Adriel D. Orozco is a senior policy adviser at the American Immigration Council, which works to improve our immigration system. He believes that blocking access to asylum based on the number of contacts with immigrants is the wrong approach to solving problems in a strained and under-resourced system. Orozco supports the Biden administration’s use of parole to allow people to remain in the United States while they apply for residency. He hopes Harris will continue that practice. I spoke with him about Harris’s approach to solving immigration issues as a senator and vice president, and what advocates can expect from her administration if she becomes the 47th president.
Republicans falsely called Harris Biden’s “border czar.” What do you think their rationale is?
I think there was an inaccurate portrayal of her job from the beginning. A lot of the headlines at the time were focused on her handling of immigration issues in general, and White House officials said she would oversee the whole-of-government approach to immigration. There was a lot of confusion.
What role has Harris actually played in the Biden administration on immigration policy?
President Biden announced at a press conference that Vice President Harris would lead a diplomatic campaign to address the root causes of migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The idea was to think about why people are leaving the region. She was tasked with increasing public and private sector investment in the region to strengthen the economy. She also tried to figure out how to address corruption within the government and tackle some of the smuggling and human trafficking networks.
But it was intended to be a long-term strategy from the beginning. She was never intended to focus on border policy. That was always under the direction of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
What were the specific goals of the “root cause strategy”?
She thought seriously about the issues that are affecting people’s livelihoods in these Northern Triangle countries and forcing them to leave the region. She wanted to increase investment, especially from the private sector and other agencies like the United Nations and USAID. Some of that was to address some of the networks that were being built around drug trafficking, human trafficking, and human smuggling, which were also driving up migration levels in the region.
Was this strategy different from that of the previous administration??
There has always been an attempt to provide investment to the region to support the local economy, depending on the administration. This was quite different from the Trump administration, which primarily sought to strengthen enforcement mechanisms within these countries to prevent migration. So it was different in the sense that it was trying to look more broadly at why people are (coming) than just through an enforcement and deterrence lens.
Did it work?
It’s a little hard to pinpoint. There are some things that have been successful. Vice President Harris and the Biden-Harris administration have pointed to more than $5 billion in private sector investment in the region. They’ve created a task force to create more cooperation between Mexico and these Northern Triangle countries to address smuggling and human trafficking. There’s generally less migrants coming from that region, but there are a number of reasons why. Mexico is particularly stopping them from getting to the U.S.-Mexico border, and there have been some changes in security in El Salvador. So it’s hard to say, but it’s important to create more regional cooperation. You can’t stop it border by border.
She tries to take a humanistic view of migration, given her background as a child of immigrants, but she is also a prosecutor.
What position did Harris take on immigration policy in the Senate?
She is perhaps best known for her ability to cross-examine Trump administration officials, particularly on the “zero tolerance” policy of separating families at the border, which has resulted in more than 3,000 children being separated from their parents. On policy, she was a vocal supporter of the DACA program and criticized it when the Trump administration rolled back the program. She also defended the path to citizenship and was willing to confront the administration head-on when she saw that it was actually harming immigrant communities.
What would your organization like to see if a Harris administration wins??
We want to see a shift away from relying primarily on deterrence and enforcement policies at the border. We think we need to think more holistically about immigration. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a shift to the right in policy proposals under the Biden-Harris administration, particularly the bipartisan Senate bill that Biden and Harris both support to try to block access to asylum as a means of deterring immigration. And we think that’s the wrong approach.
From what I’ve read and seen, Vice President Harris seems to be trying to take a balanced approach. She’s trying to take a humanitarian view of immigration, given her background as a child of immigrants, but she’s also a prosecutor. She also understands the importance of enforcing the law and protecting vulnerable communities, so I think there’s a good chance that she’ll be much more proactive in supporting increased access to pathways so that individuals don’t have to make the dangerous journey to the U.S. border.
It was hard to see how the bipartisan Senate bill was largely focused on trying to block asylum claims at the border. (We) need to strike the right balance between saying we need security at the border and that people who have been in the United States for a long time deserve a dignified process to become citizens.
What changes would you like to see in the U.S. asylum system?
The Senate border bill wasn’t all bad. Our organization thinks some of the components are reasonable. One is making the asylum process non-adversarial. So currently, the overwhelming majority of immigrants can’t afford lawyers to represent them in immigration court proceedings, but the government always has government lawyers. So if we can get non-adversarial, trained asylum officers, it gives people more opportunities to tell their stories and, if they’re eligible to stay in the United States, to stay.
One of our concerns about coercive deterrence-based policies is that they are sending people back to places where they are at risk. Internationally, we have a duty to protect people from being put at risk. What is unfortunate about the Biden-Harris administration is that they have not secured the resources necessary to deal with the larger number of individuals showing up at the border.
A look at her previous work shows that she pursues pragmatism.
So they’ve been put in an impossible situation by the Congress, especially the conservatives, who have decided that they don’t want to fund the system that exists. The system is broken in so many ways, not just the laws that exist, but the fact that our Congress doesn’t actually want to fund the laws that exist.
What do you think the Harris administration should do about illegal aliens already residing in the United States?
We believe that a path to citizenship for immigrants who have been in the United States for a long time is something she should be advocating for. Without a fundamental change in the composition of Congress, I think it’s hard to see how she can actually get it through. Many of the tools that the Biden administration has used, and the Harris administration could use, such as temporary protected status as a means of protecting more of the population in the United States.
Did Harris hint at any changes the Biden administration might make to immigration policy?
We heard from her speech that she supports a bipartisan border bill and would defend it if it could win. She generally said she supports a path to citizenship. But we haven’t gotten specifics on other policies yet. I think given her relationship with the Biden administration, she’ll take a similar approach on parole and TPS (Temporary Protected Status).
How do you view Harris’ recent move toward a more aggressive approach to the immigration campaign?
I think it’s good to see her taking a more forceful approach to rhetoric and trying to shape the narrative. She obviously has a strong position, given Donald Trump’s involvement in blocking bipartisan legislation through Congress, but she’s adopting Republican language on crime and protection.
That fits into her role as a prosecutor. So part of it is political, trying to meet people who are concerned about borders and security, given the years of fear around that issue. What we’ve seen in her previous work is that she tries to be pragmatic. I’m sure she’ll try to think about how to set rules while respecting the people who have been here for a long time without permission.
It’s a little bit concerning that the Democrats are adopting that language, but overall, I think there’s hope that she’s going to take a much more humanitarian approach to immigration. And her opponent’s rhetoric on immigration is just horrible. They’re trying to use the military and the National Guard to drive out immigrants. So Vice President Harris seems like the reasonable person in the room. Although if you compare her to four years ago, she’s probably way to the right on that rhetoric.
