The Dispatch, October 24, 2024
[The Dispatch published four brief pieces on the immigration policy stakes in the coming presidential election. My contribution is below; the other three contributors were anti-borders libertarians affiliated with the Cato Institute.]
The biggest concern about a Harris administration is that it would represent a continuation, or even intensification, of the past four years of immigration lawlessness.
Despite Harris’ claims of being a born-again border hawk, everything else points in the opposite direction. Putting aside her administration’s policies—which according to a House Judiciary Committee report resulted in the release of close to 6 million illegal border-crossers—her extreme legislative record while in the Senate and the regulatory agenda already in place point to a continued undermining of immigration enforcement.
Her repeated invocation of the immigration bill put forth by the Biden administration in its first days is also telling. It would have legalized all illegal aliens who’d arrived at least one month before its introduction and did not contain even the pretense of enforcement to prevent future amnesties. The bill, dubbed the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, was so outlandish that it was never even considered in committee in the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress.
Even if Congress didn’t go along with these elements of Harris’ agenda, her administration would almost certainly continue to use asylum and parole as the means of running a parallel, extra-statutory immigration system. This ongoing usurpation of Congress’ role in deciding who gets to move here is consistent with the presidency’s arrogation of authority over war-making.
A Trump administration can be counted on to restore immigration enforcement, but there are still two things to look for.
First, will it adequately prepare to ensure that the moves needed to restore order are politically sustainable and aren’t stopped by the courts? In 2017, the misnamed Muslim ban was at first so slapdash that it caused chaos at airports among immigration inspectors confused by it. The policy—essential for national security—was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court as a legitimate exercise of power explicitly delegated to the president by Congress. But that was only after running an avoidable political and legal gauntlet. Whether those staffing a potential second Trump administration learn from those mistakes will bear watching.
The second concern is that Trump’s repeatedly stated support for mass immigration—so long as it’s legal—will result in some regrettable decisions. For instance, Trump has said that every foreign student should get a green card upon graduation, regardless of major—even students at community colleges. Canada tried something similar and the resulting rapid growth in the immigrant population placed great strain on housing, health care, and other services. A Republican Congress would be unlikely to go along since Trump’s supporters actually are immigration restrictionists, but it too will bear watching.