MIna: Are American voters more sensitive to the subject of immigration in states bordering Mexico, such as Arizona, than in the rest of the country? Do we have any data on this?
Fanny Lauby: The American public is sensitive to the issue of immigration, especially when candidates highlight this problem. After Donald Trump’s campaigns in 2016 and 2024, American voters are more likely to say that immigration is an important issue – whereas in 2008, for example, the key topics were more healthcare or the economy. There are polls available for each state that highlight voters’ different priorities.
Those who live close to the border tend to worry about national security. However, other states that are further from the border (but where many immigrants live, such as Illinois or New Jersey), are also interested in the immigration issue but for a different reason, such as the lack of work visas.
Kevin: Does Kamala Harris’s agenda on immigration differ much from that pursued by Biden during his tenure? Where does she stand on her record as vice president?
Harris’s program largely continues what Biden did in his final months in office – notably on hardening the border and seeking compromise with the Republican Party. Her campaign promises largely echo elements of the bill introduced last winter in Congress, which includes the possibility of closing the border if the number of daily contacts exceeds 2,500 per day over the course of a week, for example. She also plans to ask Congress for additional funds to hire border agents.
Her work as vice president depends on the issues the president has agreed to give her. On the subject of immigration, she was responsible for negotiating agreements with Central American countries that send immigrants, and for finding private funds to support them financially. However, this has no effect on other countries such as Venezuela or Haiti, where a large proportion of today’s asylum seekers come from.
T: I find it hard to understand how people with relatively recent immigrant backgrounds would want to secure the borders and limit further immigration.
Not all immigrants have the same experience in the US. Some come from generations of immigrants from a time when the rules for entering the US were far less restrictive. This leads many to say, “My (grand)parents followed the rules, so why can’t the newcomers do the same?” This sentiment is often the case for descendants of immigrants of Italian or Irish origin, for example.
Other groups, though more recent, have experienced different treatment under U.S. immigration laws. For instance, Cuban immigrants were systematically favored in the 1960s following Fidel Castro’s rise to power. It’s also the case for many people of Puerto Rican origin who are US citizens by right.
Moreover, American society is highly stratified along racial and ethnic lines, and groups that face discrimination also seek to find their place within this society by putting a certain distance between themselves and new immigrants.
The Wall: Much has been said about Trump’s famous wall on the Mexican border. In reality, how many kilometers have been built, has it served any purpose, and has the Biden administration continued the work?
Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it – a completely unrealistic promise. Construction of the wall began decades ago and accelerated during the 1990s when immigration became a national security issue and no longer an issue just linked to the labor market. During Trump’s term in office, only a few dozen kilometers of additional wall were built (the border is over 3,000 kilometers in total). Most of the budget devoted to the wall was used to repair existing barriers.
It’s important to note that the subject of the wall and its funding has caused much strife within the Republican government and Party. At the end of 2018, the government had to shut down when Congress, then largely dominated by Republicans, failed to agree on funding for the wall. The House of Representatives passed a bill granting Trump several billions for the wall, but the more moderate Senate refused. It was the longest shutdown in the country’s history, lasting almost 35 days.
Sylvain: You say that illegal immigration peaked during Biden’s term, do we have any figures for comparison?
Today, there are around 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US. This is less than in 2007, before the financial crisis when there were 12 million irregular immigrants. Around a quarter of these immigrants have protected status: asylum seekers (900,000), “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” [DACA] for those who arrived as children (600,000), “Temporary Protected Status” for those fleeing a dangerous situation according to the federal government (650,000), T and U visa applicants for victims of crime and trafficking (300,000).
When Joe Biden took office, the pandemic enabled the federal government to invoke Article 42 of the Constitution, which allows the government to close the border during a health crisis. That’s why, at the end of Trump’s term and the beginning of Biden’s, entries and the number of asylum seekers were down sharply. In the spring of 2023, the administration had to lift these restrictions (because you can’t say the pandemic is over and maintain migration restrictions). Many asylum seekers were then able to arrive in the US from countries such as Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In December 2023, more than 250,000 people showed up at the border, compared with an average of 60,000 in the early 2010s. In June 2024, Biden put new restrictions in place, and the figures since this summer have fallen to less than 100,000 people a month.
Coline: How do you explain the rise of openly racist, false and dangerous rhetoric in the American debate, with claims like immigrants eating dogs or being the garbage of the world and calls for deportations? Aren’t there consequences for this?
The discourse on immigration has changed and hardened over the last few decades. As far back as the 1980s and 1990s, immigration debates regularly spoke of “waves” and invasion, and focused on criminalizing immigration. This is why the discourse we hear today is false and dangerous, but not surprising given the trend that precedes it.
There are several reasons for this type of discourse. For one thing, the immigrants arriving in the US (legally or otherwise) are different from the immigrants who arrived at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, immigrants come mainly from Asia and Latin America – groups that are regularly targeted by racist attacks. Added to this is the growing polarization of the country and its political parties. In the 1980s, the two parties willingly worked together on immigration issues (it was Reagan who signed the 1986 law that allowed three million undocumented immigrants to become US citizens), but the two parties are now fiercely opposed on the issue of immigration.
Finally, it has to be said that the media are reluctant to reframe candidates who use this type of rhetoric. Public trust in the media has plummeted, and any attempt at reframing is often seen as implicit support for the Democrats.
Olive: Can you elaborate on exactly what the “mass deportation” project Trump is campaigning on entails? If he wins, would he be able to carry it out?
Trump plans to deport the majority of undocumented immigrants – in other words, around 11 million people. This would not only represent a phenomenal cost to the US government but would also deal a fatal blow to the American economy.
As a comparison, the federal government can currently arrest and detain 40,000 people. Congress would have to grant Trump tens of billions of dollars to hire border agents and build prisons – and it doesn’t seem likely that Congress, even if the Republicans win, would agree to pass such a budget. As a reminder, when Trump wanted $5 billion to build a wall in 2018, Republicans couldn’t pass their budget, and the government shut down for 35 days.
The US economy also depends on immigrant workers, including undocumented ones, who make up a significant proportion of the workforce in construction, personal services and food preparation.
Maxime: Why is immigration a major campaign issue in this election? Does this theme carry more weight in some states than others?
It’s hard to distinguish between what is public opinion itself (what voters care about), what comes from Trump’s outbursts (for example, on the issue of Haitian immigrants in Ohio) and what comes from the media’s choices about coverage of the campaign.
The American public is interested in immigration, and it’s clear that the country is in need of major reform. Waiting times for family visas can be more than a decade and US employers are having trouble finding skilled workers.
However, this theme carries more weight than other important issues (student debt, guns or the lack of investment in infrastructure, for example) because the candidates have chosen to highlight it and the media are largely going the candidates’ way. I’m thinking in particular of Harris’s interview on CBS on October 7, during which she was asked to comment on the immigration “wave” during her tenure as vice president. In this setting, the choice of topic, as well as the manner in which it was approached, was made by the CBS journalists –not by the audience, nor by the candidate.
Noah: Why is immigration considered Harris’s Achilles heel?
Harris is held responsible by Republican voters for changes in migration flows in recent years. Since the mid-2010s, asylum applications have been made by families (not individuals) from countries such as Venezuela, Central America and Haiti. This imposes greater costs on the federal government. The pandemic also plays an important role, as for almost three years, migration flows were sharply reduced, then picked up again considerably.
On the Democratic side, voters are disappointed by the strict line chosen by the candidate and her support for the bill introduced this winter, which allows the border to be closed under certain circumstances and no longer offers access to a green card for certain undocumented young people. Harris must not only maintain the Democratic coalition, which normally relies on pro-immigration organizations but also attract independents and moderate Republicans, who often prefer a tougher stance on immigration.
Math: What relationship does the public have today with the founding myth of the United States? Has this one run its course or is it still evoked regularly?
The key word here is “founding myth.” The American public has an idea that the US is a country of immigration, but few really know how the law has evolved since the 18th century. That’s why we often hear those who oppose current immigration say, “My ancestors followed the law well, so why shouldn’t newcomers?”
In response to this, it’s worth noting that there isn’t one rule to follow for today’s would-be immigrants, but dozens of them, that vary according to national origin. It’s important to understand that for the first hundred years of its existence, the US simply didn’t have a federal law restricting the arrival of immigrants. The Border Patrol, for example, dates back only to 1924.
The lack of education about the history of immigration in the US is deliberate and contributes to the founding myth of the country promoted by conservative elected officials. Even when some schools and states attempt to promote a complete history, including the conquest of the Southwest and the Mexican heritage of the part of the country, many elected officials decry such efforts as unpatriotic.
This post was originally published on here
