Since Vice President Kamala Harris’ ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket, a cautious truce has lasted between moderates, liberals and progressive Democrats.
There has been no vocal or public controversy among elected Democrats or Democratic voters over Harris’ candidacy or campaign, except for some premature skepticism from online progressives about Harris’s vice presidential bid; Harris is almost there Universal Favorability Among his fellow parties. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) did not succumb to the kind of chaos and division that was anxiously predicted when Biden was the presumptive nominee; Indeed, Democrats are showing unprecedented levels being the array.
Perhaps no issue is more emblematic of this party unity than the thorny issues Democrats have long hoped to avoid: immigration and the politics of the southern border. At the DNC last week, Harris and the speakers who addressed the nation made it clear that the Democratic Party is moving right toward the political center in 2024, as they talked about immigrants, immigration and security on the southern border. While the Democratic focus has been on humanitarianism, openness to immigrants, and rolling back Trump-era restrictive policies, Democrats have focused on stemming the flow of immigrants, limiting asylum, and funding more Border Patrol operations.
That’s partly out of a need to appeal to moderate, swing and independent voters in the various battleground states that will decide the 2024 election. But it’s also a recognition of a different national environment in which Democrats are operating American adults of all stripes have become far more negative in their thinking about immigration and border security Gone are the days of touting humanitarian views on immigration, expanding opportunities for asylum seekers, and running to outdo other Democrats on the left.
It’s not surprising that presidential candidates are centering on major issues ahead of the general election. Surprisingly, on immigration, the Harris campaign is doing so without facing much opposition from liberal politicians, progressive activists, or even longtime pro-immigrant advocacy groups. Progressive activists and advocates say the truce will hold — at least until Trump is defeated and a more accommodating president, Kamala Harris, is elected.
“Yes, there is a clear and deep concern about how much Democrats are willing to compromise on immigration,” Vanessa Cardenas, executive director of the pro-immigration reform group America’s Voice, told me. “We are in a very different political moment than in years past. We’re going to have to make hard choices. But ultimately as advocates, we have to keep our eye on the ball and ensure as many wins as possible.”
The shift in the Democratic Party on immigration was on full display at the DNC
Harris previewed his new vision, and the new direction of the Democratic Party, during his acceptance speech last Thursday when he promised to “bring back the bipartisan border security bill.” [Donald Trump] killed.”
The bill, negotiated earlier this year by Biden and a bipartisan group of senators, would put $20 billion toward new security measures at the southern border and impose new, more restrictive policies on asylum seekers and other immigrants. The bill failed once Trump began opposing it, on the grounds that it would defuse an issue that, left unaddressed, could benefit him in the election, but its mere existence was notable for the absence of citizenship or other collateral pathways. Immigrant priorities Democrats have traditionally advocated for.
Harris’ embrace of the bill is a major signal for how his administration will deal with immigration: He’s fine with border policies that are tough on immigrants and strengthen border security without giving much to immigrant advocacy groups.
But his support for the measure drew scrutiny from the Trump campaign and some in the media, who noted that the bill included tens of millions of dollars. Funding for the construction of the southern border wallwhich Harris had previously criticized and called “un-American”. The VP’s campaign argued that the money was a continuation of spending authorized during Trump’s presidency, updated with new guidelines on where it could be spent.
And he is not making a complete break with democratic tradition.
“I know we can uphold our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants and reform our broken immigration system,” he said in his DNC speech to thunderous applause. “We can create an earned path to citizenship — and secure our borders.”
Pro-immigrant activists advocate what Harris described to me in his DNC speech as a “both/and” approach to immigration: reforming a broken system for processing asylum claims, while providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Time enough, and restore order on the southern border without demonizing immigrants.
It’s a palatable balance for now, but may not be sustainable in the long term due to some of the hardline positions Harris, Biden and the rest of the party have taken, including embracing a bipartisan border bill. The 2024 DNC platform, for example, acknowledges that part of the reason for immigration reform is to speed up the deportation of economic immigrants and those deemed to have no legal reason to immigrate. It called on Congress to “strengthen requirements for valid asylum claims” and boosted Biden’s executive actions to limit asylum when border crossings reach unbearable levels.
Why has the left suppressed its anger for now?
For some progressives, the party’s embrace of the border bill is worrisome because the negotiating process that produced it in early 2024 marked a significant departure from the way Democrats have traditionally dealt with immigration and border politics.
For much of the past decade and a half, Democratic politicians would typically only consider enforcement and border security funding when linked to pro-immigrant reforms or policies. Biden’s deal with Senate Republicans did not address the humanitarian side of the immigration debate and instead dealt only with border security.
“Some of the lessons learned in the past are that sometimes Democrats pay so much for enforcement and it doesn’t correspond to what’s available on the legalization side,” Cárdenas said. “We’re concerned about the often-cited Senate bill — we’re concerned that it could be the starting point for any legislation.”
But elections are binary choices, Cárdenas and other advocates point out. At this point, Harris is triangulating a position that responds to real-world factors: images of people crossing the border, overwhelmed border communities dealing with a constant flow, Republicans politicizing the issue and demonizing immigrants, and public opinion turning away from supporters. Immigrant movement.
The RNC and DNC offered “a very clear difference in how both parties and candidates are talking about immigration,” Yadira Sanchez, executive director of the progressive organization Poder Latinx, told me. One convention was a rally in favor of mass deportation and “the border and immigrants themselves were used as scapegoats to spread hatred and xenophobia around the border crisis,” Sanchez said. Another convention presented their candidate as the daughter of immigrants, who respects the country’s immigrant past while seeking to crack down on transnational gangs.
Sánchez also pointed to Democrats’ pivot to the center in speeches and party platforms, but noted that the alternative to Democratic governance would be untenable for immigration advocates and immigrants alike.
“Yes, we didn’t get what we wanted as an immigrant rights organization. We want fair, equitable, dignified, humane asylum processes for people who are seeking asylum, who are experiencing that turmoil in their countries, who are seeking safety. The border talk was something where we saw a shift, but I wouldn’t say it completely complicates our advocacy work because our advocacy work goes beyond any candidate, in the sense that we hold them accountable,” Sanchez said.
The overriding sense I picked up from these activists is that they and their constituencies understand the trade-offs before them: to achieve their policy goals, they need a Democratic president and a Democratic congressional majority, so they’ll be part of the larger party Harris and the party win in November. Trying to build tent alliances to be. This reflects moderate candidates like New York’s representatives. Tom Suzy To respond to suburban concerns about immigration and even some progressive candidates, such as Michelle Vallejo in the Rio Grande Valley, doing now: Admits that electoral victories are a top priority and moves to tough negotiations on the border in hopes of winning a Congressional majority.
That’s not to say that progressives don’t have some strong disagreements with the approach Harris and the Democratic Party are currently taking, but they will likely avoid direct confrontation.
“At this point, the assignment is very clear,” Cárdenas said. “We need to make sure that Trump is defeated and that in February of 2025, we can have a conversation about what kind of reforms we need.”
