With rising border crossings, Kamala Harris opts for a long-term solution

President Joe Biden, facing a significant influx of migrants from Central America into the U.S. just months into his presidency, tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with addressing the issue. This move has exposed Harris to one of her major political challenges.

In addressing migration, Harris adopted a cautious approach. She concentrated her efforts on increasing private investment in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, collectively known as the Northern Triangle. The objective was to create jobs that could strengthen the local economies, thereby deterring people from embarking on the dangerous journey to the U.S.

However, this method, which focused on long-term solutions to a humanitarian crisis, allowed opponents to link her to broader border issues. Even as migration from the Northern Triangle decreased, a surge from other countries led to a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, an opportunity that Republicans have seized to criticize Harris.

A closer look at Harris’ immigration work reveals a more complex picture than the one presented by critics or supporters. It sheds light on how she, now the Democratic frontrunner following Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race, may approach this complicated issue moving forward.

Contrary to claims from former President Donald Trump and others that she was the “border czar,” Harris’ role was focused instead on tackling the root causes of migration and encouraging leaders in the Northern Triangle and Mexico to enforce local immigration laws.

Supporters of Harris argue that she has showcased her leadership capabilities by leveraging her position to secure investments that could potentially lessen migration in the future.

Ricardo Zúniga, a former State Department official with expertise in the Northern Triangle, noted that Harris believed her strongest contribution was to lead efforts to attract investment by assuring potential investors of the White House’s support.

However, critics assert that she could have taken more decisive action, claiming her focus on long-term solutions exacerbated the crisis. Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, argued that addressing the root causes is a slow process, typically taking generations, not just a single term.

Harris has defended her initiatives, recently launching an ad campaign that promises to hire thousands of new border agents and intensify efforts against fentanyl and human trafficking. Additionally, Democrats have pointed fingers at Trump for undermining a bipartisan immigration bill that aimed to enhance border security funding.

Immigration remains a significant political issue, energizing Trump’s base. During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to build a wall along the southern border and have Mexico fund it. While he managed to construct a portion of the barrier, Mexico did not financially contribute as promised. Trump’s rhetoric regarding immigrants often stirred controversy, framing them in a negative light.

Migration patterns fluctuated during both administrations. Initially, border patrol arrests increased during Trump’s presidency, peaking at over 850,000 in 2019. Numbers dropped during the pandemic but surged to record highs again during Biden’s administration, with over 250,000 encounters reported in December 2023. By June 2024, the numbers fell below 84,000.

When Biden assumed office, he reversed numerous Trump-era immigration policies, even as apprehensions rose. Harris inherited the task of addressing migration just as border crossings were escalating, resulting in bipartisan calls for action.

Chris Newman, a Los Angeles-based immigration rights advocate, noted that Harris inherited a challenging assignment that required a long-term policy framework rather than a brief, high-profile intervention.

Only two months into their administration, Biden and Harris were facing significant pressure to develop meaningful immigration policies. While Harris was tasked with addressing the roots of migration, she had to navigate complex relationships with regional leaders, some of whom had contentious ties with the Biden administration.

Despite the overwhelming challenges, Harris sought to steer investment into Central America through meetings with business leaders and nonprofit organizations, all while leveraging the authority of the White House. Her efforts connected major corporations with smaller entities dedicated to supporting vulnerable communities.

The administration reported that Harris’ initiatives have resulted in over $5.2 billion in investment commitments. While some companies like AgroAmerica have begun implementing their projects, many others either declined to comment or had not responded regarding their progress.

The vice president’s office noted that as of June 2024, $1.3 billion had actually been invested in the region, primarily in Guatemala and Honduras. Some corporations are on track to meet their investment goals, citing that Harris’ efforts demonstrated a smart strategy in a risky investment landscape.

As part of her approach, Harris also confronted the corruption that has contributed to migration from Central America. Before her visit to Guatemala, she engaged with exiled Guatemalan prosecutors and judges, who highlighted the pervasive corruption in their country.

Although the Harris campaign has pointed to a decrease in migration from Northern Triangle countries since early 2021, opinions differ on the causes of this decline. Some argue credit is due for Harris’ policies, while independent analysts suggest the changes might be influenced by other regional dynamics.

Julia Gelatt from the Migration Policy Institute indicated that economic development could take years to effectively alter migration trends, noting that numerous factors contribute to migration patterns.

The outcomes of Harris’ initiatives remain under scrutiny, inviting debate over their effectiveness and the long-term solutions addressing migration issues.

Source: AP News