In \u201cThe Real Choice on Immigration,\u201d Julia Preston brilliantly contrasts the vision of U.S. migration governance that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented during their respective campaigns. She points out that Trump\u2019s approach relies on provocative language and policies that resonate widely with the public, without any sensitivity to what is moral or feasible. In fact, while Trump has been roundly criticized for his talk about immigrants\u2014including by members of the conservative party\u2014many people believe that his approach is effective in reducing the number of immigrants at the southern border, even if it offends the social conscience. One of Preston\u2019s main arguments is that this perception is wrong. She argues that Trump has wasted resources on temporary solutions\u2014such as strict enforcement at the border and in communities or on building up the border\u2014rather than on long-term solutions. For Preston, Harris\u2019s approach is more grounded in practical solutions that address concerns about the porous southern border, realize America\u2019s humanitarian aspirations, and recognize the economic necessity of migrants. She writes that Harris \u201cis proposing practical reforms to fortify the border and overhaul the immigration process in line with the nation\u2019s labor needs and humanitarian aspirations\u201d while \u201cTrump proposes an exclusionist project that would not only bring turmoil and hardship to communities across the country but would also do long-term damage to the U.S. economy and undermine the United States\u2019 global reputation\u201d.
This article was published in the run-up to the US elections in late October, which explains why the author wrote it as a \u201cchoice\u201d between two opposing visions of US immigration policy and ultimately presented Harris\u2019s as the most desirable for the United States. However, I believe that outside of an electoral context, there is actually a false dichotomy between the approaches proposed by the two parties. I think it\u2019s worth acknowledging that both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted to the right in terms of their positions on immigration policy. This explains why Biden\u2019s recent moves are in line with what conservative members of Congress would have supported had Trump not insisted on torpedoing any initiative that appears to address the border. It also explains why Biden and Harris supported the bill even though it does not include provisions for a more durable solution and fixes to the country\u2019s asylum system. Preston herself writes that \u201cin its current form, the bill is heavy on Republican enforcement priorities and does not address Democrats\u2019 most long-standing reform demands, particularly for pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, farm workers, and spouses of American citizens\u201d. Rather than a \u201ctactical\u201d and strategic campaign decision by Harris, I believe that the positions on this bill are an indicator of the future of American policy in terms of migration governance, which means a shift towards more restrictive policies, regardless of the political affiliations of the proponents. Understanding this broader structural implication is important because it allows us to move away from individual platforms to understand the changing trends in US foreign affairs and domestic politics. In other words, Harris was not going to save us either.<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In \u201cThe Real Choice on Immigration,\u201d Julia Preston brilliantly contrasts the vision of U.S. migration governance that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented during their respective campaigns. She points out that Trump\u2019s approach relies on provocative language and policies that resonate widely with the public, without any sensitivity to what is moral or feasible. In<\/p>\n