Kamala Harris just made a statement in Arizona outlining her position on border security. The conversation was intended to address the border’s continued chaos and criticism from Republicans for her role as Joe Biden’s “border king.” But the latter discussion misses a important distinction: To act as a “border czar”, one must first consider in national frontiers.
With Harris, that’s not an intellectual question given her previous jobs. In her brief time in the Senate, Harris developed a far-left report in addition to the Biden administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws for the previous four years. For example, Harris argued in 2018 that” civil enforcement issues should be a civil enforcement topic, but not a legal protection 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.
Further questions are raised by Harris ‘ support for a policy that effectively outsources immigration policy to an international body. Just four short years ago, during Covid-19 shutdowns, she co-sponsored regulations that do” dismiss all immigration enforcement-related actions in the United States” under many circumstances. Under the act, any public health emergency, federal disaster regarding a transferable disease, or “global epidemic declared by the World Health Organization” did see immigration enforcement stop.
Given that Harris supports giving border protection, one of the hallmarks of national independence, to a branch of the UN, it seems fair to inquire whether she believes in protection. Nothing in the act prevents the WHO from declaring a worldwide pandemic only to end U.S. immigration police. Also, little prevents Harris, or any future leader, from declaring a public health emergency over an related problem — such as gun violence — to halt border enforcement.
In November 2019, Harris bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2565/cosponsors?s=4&r=1&q=%257B%2522search%2522:%2522s2565%2522%257D” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>co-sponsored another bill creating a new category of” climate-displaced persons” admitted into the country. Although the regulations mentions allowing 50, 000 of these individuals to enter each season, it does not establish a fixed cap on the number of displaced people who can be admitted. As with the latest refugee system, the president would have the option to say as many people as he deemed necessary following sessions with Congress.
Harris has yet to adopt some specific legislation opportunities, aside from trying to overturn some of her controversial stances ( such as outlawing private health insurance ) during her short-lived 2020 presidential campaign. According to Politico, “elected authorities are hoping an consciously soft approach on immigration, especially, could help protect them from GOP assaults”. Politico should be aware that Harris has a history of contentious and permissive immigration proposals that go against that “intentionally soft” election method.
Reporters should concentrate their forces on re-evaluating the proposals she has recently endorsed rather than trying to memorize their personal previous accounts of Harris as a “border czar.” Why does she help giving a global organization a powerful veto over American immigration enforcement after spending months applauding a Taiwanese government that attempted to cover up the crisis?
The climate-displaced people act claimed that” by 2050, there could be as many as 200, 000, 000″ for people. What number and source of immigrants did she support entering the US? Do Harris website the number of weather immigrants who have been declared to be “decarbonization,” making Republicans reluctant to back green-energy meat and strict environmental laws across the board?
Harris ‘ issue with the frontier is much bigger than her previous subject. It goes to her plans, and whether and to what degree she believes in federal territories.
