The Real Question Behind the Kamala Harris “Border Czar” Dispute
Recently, Kamala Harris made a speech in Arizona in which she tried to talk tough on border security. The speech was intended to respond to the ongoing chaos at the border, along with attacks from Republicans about her service as Joe Biden’s “border czar.” But the latter controversy misses a fundamental distinction: To act as a “border czar,” one must first believe in national borders.
With Harris, that’s not an academic question given her prior positions. Over and above the Biden administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws the last four years, Harris developed a record far to the left during the short time she served in the Senate. For instance, Harris argued in 2018 that immigration violations “should be a civil enforcement issue but not a criminal enforcement issue.”
Responding to leftist calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Harris also called for “critically re-examin[ing]” the agency, claiming “we need to probably think about starting from scratch”—a position her NBC interviewer called on the “far edge” of mainstream politics.
The specifics of her legislative record raise further questions, beginning with Harris’ support for a policy effectively outsourcing immigration policy to an international body. Just four short years ago, during Covid-19 lockdowns, she co-sponsored legislation that would “suspend all immigration enforcement-related activities in the United States” under several conditions. Under the bill, any public health emergency, national emergency regarding a communicable disease, or “global pandemic declared by the World Health Organization” would see immigration enforcement cease.
Given that Harris supported ceding border enforcement — one of the hallmarks of national sovereignty — to an arm of the United Nations, it seems reasonable to ask whether she believes in enforcement. Nothing in the bill prevents the WHO from declaring a global pandemic solely to halt U.S. immigration enforcement. Similarly, nothing prevents Harris, or any future president, from declaring a public health emergency over an unrelated issue — such as gun violence — to suspend border enforcement.
In November 2019, Harris co-sponsored another bill creating a new category of “climate-displaced persons” admitted into the country. While the legislation references allowing 50,000 such individuals entry each year, it does not set a hard-and-fast cap on the number of displaced persons admitted. Instead, the president would have the discretion to admit as many individuals as he saw fit following consultations with Congress, as with the current refugee program.
It’s not for nothing that Harris has yet to take many detailed policy positions, other than trying to U-turn away from some controversial stances (like outlawing private health insurance) she took during her short-lived 2020 presidential campaign. According to Politico, “elected officials are hoping an intentionally fuzzy approach on immigration, particularly, could help shield them from GOP attacks.” But Politico should know that Harris has a history of controversial and lenient immigration proposals that run contrary to that “intentionally fuzzy” election strategy.
Instead of working to memory-hole their own prior descriptions of Harris as a “border czar,” reporters should focus their energies on questioning the proposals she has previously endorsed. Why does she support giving an international organization — one that spent months praising a Chinese government that tried to cover up the pandemic — an effective veto over America’s immigration enforcement?
The climate-displaced persons bill claimed that “by 2050, there could be as many as 200,000,000” such individuals. How many would she support bringing to the United States, and from where? Would Harris link the number of climate refugees admitted to “decarbonization,” forcing Republicans to support green-energy pork and climate regulations across the economy?
The problem with Harris on the border goes far deeper than her former title. It goes to her policies, and whether and to what extent she believes in national borders.
This post was originally published at The Federalist.