The Democratic Party’s approach to the U.S.-Mexico border has fundamentally shifted, as was illustrated most clearly at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. While the 2020 convention was sprinkled with condemnations of the Trump administration’s border restrictions, the former president’s immigration record was invoked at this year’s convention primarily to condemn him for sabotaging a bipartisan Senate border security bill. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has pledged to resurrect that Senate bill (although Republican cosponsors have since walked away from it), which would enact the toughest border security measures in years. One of the first ads her campaign aired highlighted border security and her record prosecuting drug cartels and trafficking organizations as California’s attorney general, and her trip to the border on September 27—less than six weeks before Election Day—is only her second since becoming vice president. This focus on border security represents a stark contrast to 2020, when now-President Joe Biden pledged to halt construction of the border wall, reverse President Donald Trump’s border policies, and welcome asylum seekers.
While policies narrowing access to asylum and expanding the border wall were once demonized by Democratic Party leaders, they are now a core element of party orthodoxy, though Democrats also extol the benefits of legal immigration and continue to press for legalization for Dreamers and other long-resident unauthorized immigrants. In contrast, Trump has described border arrivals as “an invasion,” calling unauthorized immigration a threat to U.S. society that will require a “bloody story” to resolve. Others in his party use similar language and describe a “replacement” of U.S. natives by immigrants. While Republican and Democratic politicians may differ sharply in tone and nuance, today there is far more alignment between the two parties—at least on border policies— than at any point in the last two decades.
This change has happened precipitously as irregular migration across the U.S.-Mexico border reached record levels over the last three years, creating deep political reverberations far into the U.S. interior. Yet this realignment has gone mostly unnoticed amid the sharp din of campaign rhetoric, where immigration remains a heavily contested issue. At the same time, fundamental differences remain between how the parties see the role of immigration in the country’s future.
In some ways, the current dynamic is a return to an earlier era. Until the early 2000s, the two parties generally agreed on the importance of controlling and reducing irregular immigration. This began to diverge over the last two decades, and by 2018 the split had reached its apex, with Democrats advancing humanitarian and welcoming policies and Republicans prioritizing border control and enforcement. Immigration proved one of the most pivotal issues that Trump employed in his 2016 victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. As recent border arrivals have again galvanized public attention, opinion polls have reflected a large gap in confidence over whom the public trusts to deal with the crisis. For instance, a January 2024 NBC News poll found that registered voters preferred Trump on the border, by a 35-percentage point margin. As Democratic leaders have shifted positions—and as Harris has become the party’s nominee—the gap has narrowed; in a September version of the same poll, Trump’s lead had decreased to 21 points. There are variations amongst the polls, but there is a consistent narrowing trend. Democrats see this as a vindication of their strategy.
Still, clear partisan differences remain over how precisely to handle irregular migration. Trump and his allies favor a mass deportation strategy, while Democrats would offer legal status to significant segments of an unauthorized immigrant population that the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates numbered 11.3 million as of mid-2022. And deeper divisions exist regarding other aspects of immigration, including temporary and permanent legal immigration. Trump has promised sharp limits to legal immigration, often while describing many immigrants in extreme and unfounded terms. Harris, meanwhile, has leaned into Biden administration policies such as increasing border enforcement and denying access to asylum for many irregular arrivals, while also creating new legal immigration pathways and embracing temporary legal statuses that offer protection from deportation but do not lead to a green card.
This article provides an overview of the shifting political approaches to the border and offers a preview of possible future U.S. immigration policy.
Major Effects of the Last Three Years on Public Opinion
The perception of chaos both at the U.S.-Mexico border and in interior cities where asylum seekers and other migrants have settled has altered how much of the U.S. public feels about border control. Fiscal year (FY) 2022 saw 2.4 million migrant encounters at the southern border, with a record 2.5 million in FY 2023 and FY 2024 on pace for a dropoff to just over 2 million (see Figure 1). Beginning in 2022, the Republican governors of Texas and Arizona began to systematically bus released migrants from the border to faraway cities such as New York, Denver, and Chicago. In December 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported the highest monthly encounters on record: nearly 302,000. Images of overwhelmed border facilities and migrant tent encampments shifted the national narrative and the positions of many Democratic officials.
Figure 1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Migrant Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico Border, FY 2015-24*
* Fiscal year (FY) 2024 data run through August, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year.
Note: Figure shows encounters at and between ports of entry.
Sources: Data for FY 2015-20 are from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS), Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly Tables, updated September 10, 2024, available online; data for FY 2021-24 are from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Nationwide Encounters, updated September 16, 2024, available online.
A January 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 80 percent of respondents thought the government was doing a “bad job” handling the U.S.-Mexico border, including 73 percent of Democrats (see Figure 2). A Chicago Council on Global Affairs/Ipsos survey conducted in April found 54 percent of U.S. adults thought “controlling and reducing [irregular] immigration” was a “very important foreign policy goal,” up from 42 percent in 2018. In June, Gallup reported that majorities of Democrats and Republicans surveyed supported hiring more Border Patrol agents and allowing the government to limit asylum claims when facilities are overwhelmed.
Figure 2. Share of U.S. Adults Saying the U.S. Government Has Done a Bad Job at the Southern Border, 2019-24
Note: Figure shows the share of U.S. adult respondents who said the government is doing a “very bad” or “somewhat bad” job “dealing with the large number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the border with Mexico.”
Source: Pew Research Center, How Americans View the Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border, Its Causes and Consequences (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2024), available online.
Democrats Move Closer to the GOP’s Border Stance
Given the national mood that this polling suggests, it is not surprising the Harris campaign and other Democrats have shifted their messaging on border control.
Trump and his campaign have remained consistently scathing about the border, including by making unsubstantiated claims that migrants are increasing U.S. crime rates, bringing diseases, voting in U.S. elections by the “millions,” and have come from foreign prisons and mental institutions. The campaign also has vastly inflated estimates of border crossers released into the United States during the Biden administration, asserting that 21 million unauthorized migrants had been allowed to enter the country. In reality, closer to 5.7 million migrants have been paroled in or allowed across the borders by the Biden administration to pursue their immigration cases. They include nearly 4.9 million entrants at the borders, many of whom are asylum seekers, and 820,000 through various humanitarian parole programs, MPI estimates (see Table 1). Between December 2023 and August 2024, border crossings between points of entry dropped by more than 70 percent, and FY 2024 is set to see the fewest border apprehensions between points of entry since before the Biden administration took office.
Table 1. Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Parolees Allowed into the United States, 2021-2024
Notes: There are no public data for processing dispositions at the U.S.-Canada border, so the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) extrapolated by using the estimated proportion of those released based on processing dispositions at the U.S.-Mexico border. The estimate for the U.S.-Mexico border includes U.S. Border Patrol releases, Office of Field Operation parolees (including CBP One entrants), transfers to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) releases originating from CBP. Data on the southwest border cover the period from January 2021 to May 2024; data on northern border encounters are from January 2021 through August 2024; data on the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program are through August 2024; data on the Uniting for Ukraine program are as of July 1, 2024; data on Operation Allies Welcome are as of March 1, 2023.
Sources: Data for the U.S.-Mexico border are from DHS, OHSS, “Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly Tables-May 2024,” updated September 10, 2024, available online; data on CHNV parolees are from CBP, “CBP Releases August 2024 Monthly Update” (press release, September 16, 2024), available online; data for U.S.-Canada border encounters are from CBP, “Nationwide Encounters,” updated September 16, 2024, available online; data for Uniting for Ukraine are from Declaration of Royce Murray, Assistant Secretary for Border and Immigration Policy, DHS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Las Americas Immigration Advocacy Center v DHS, Washington, DC, August 16, 2024, available online; data for Operation Allies Welcome are from Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman), Annual Report 2023 (Washington DC: CIS Ombudsman, 2023), available online.
According to a Washington Post analysis, between January and June, Republican campaigns ran nearly 700 ads that mentioned immigration, compared to about three dozen for Democrats. The Republican ads, which often include outdated footage from the border, were supported by the heaviest spending in Ohio, Indiana, and Montana—states far from the border but where there are key Senate races.
Though the loudest border rhetoric still comes from Trump and his fellow Republicans, Harris and the Democrats are also embracing the issue. At their convention last month, Democrats spoke almost exclusively about border security as never before, and the official party platform this year boasted about the Biden administration’s “executive actions that have significantly restricted eligibility for asylum at the border.”
Harris has touted the recent lows in border crossings after implementation of a June executive order that limits access to asylum for migrants encountered between ports of entry under certain conditions. She and other prominent Democrats have expressed their support for the unsuccessful bipartisan Senate bill, which would increase enforcement by adding 1,500 Border Patrol agents, codify similar limitations on access to asylum, add resources to the immigration courts and other parts of the immigration system, and expand legal immigration pathways.
Harris has also highlighted her immigration enforcement credentials, putting her record as a state prosecutor—including going after transnational criminal organizations—on full display and conveying a tough-on-the-border message. She supports “strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship,” her website claims. This shift does not end at the top of the ballot; although 83 immigrant-rights groups this month sent a letter to the administration denouncing the proposed Senate border security bill, congressional Democratic leaders have been silent or openly supportive of her position. Clearly, the party’s political calculus has shifted. And it may be paying off; when asked about attitudes on immigration in general, the centrist organization Third Way found that Trump has a 13-percentage point lead in terms of which candidate voters in battleground states believe has the better approach, but that advantage shrinks to just 1 percentage point once they hear more about Harris’s stance. According to this polling, respondents were impressed by Harris’s credentials as a prosecutor and her support for the Senate bill, but most supported the messaging around a reformed immigration system.
Where the Candidates Differ
Despite converging on a tough message on the border, the candidates still differ on how they would actually manage new arrivals as well as the broader role of immigration in the United States. Democrats continue to message that orderly immigration is a net positive for the country, while many Republicans frame even legal immigration as a threat to U.S. jobs and security.
The Harris campaign has been relatively light on the specific immigration policy proposals she would advance if elected. Given her support for and role in crafting the Biden administration’s policies, however, it is likely that as president she would follow a similar approach of pairing increased enforcement with greater access to lawful pathways. Beyond the enforcement measures, the scuttled Senate bill she supports includes 50,000 more green cards for employment and family-based visas for each of the next five years, which would be the first increase to legal immigration since 1990; funding for more asylum officers; government-funded legal representation for migrant children, which would be a first; and a pathway to citizenship for Afghans paroled in after helping the U.S. government during the war. The Democratic Party platform moreover includes plans to strengthen the legal immigration system, address case backlogs, increase digitization of immigration processing, and maintain high levels of refugee resettlement.
Indications from Trump’s campaign statements, the GOP platform, and Project 2025—a conservative Heritage Foundation policy playbook developed by dozens of Trump allies and other prominent Republicans, from which Trump has tried to distance himself amid a backlash—are that a second Trump administration would make sweeping changes to limit immigration of all types. Trump has repeatedly called for mass deportation of all unauthorized immigrants, with the assistance of the National Guard and local and state law enforcement; reviving the travel ban for certain Muslim-majority countries; and ending some protections for many resident noncitizens with “twilight” legal statuses such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and humanitarian parole for Afghans and Ukrainians. Trump has proposed merit-based immigration that would prioritize high-skilled immigrants while drastically cutting family immigration, arguing it would protect U.S. workers. He has also vowed to end birthright citizenship (which legal scholars generally agree is enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment for everyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ status), unwind the H-2 programs for temporary foreign workers, and tighten eligibility for U and T visas for victims of a crime and trafficking victims, respectively. A second Trump presidency would also likely resume various efforts from his previous term, such as suspending refugee admissions.
Two Visions for the Future
With a polarized electorate, immigration remains a powerful wedge issue, though neither presidential hopeful has offered a viable strategy for how they would overcome the multiple barriers to advancing their agenda. While Harris repeatedly touts her support for the discarded Senate bill, she has not offered a plan to successfully shepherd it through a divided Congress, especially with some of its champions now abandoning it as dead. Similarly, when asked how he plans to carry out large-scale deportations—which would require vast new resources and the cooperation of many other countries to accept return of their citizens—Trump has skirted the question. Whatever the outcome of the race, the next president will face an uphill battle in Congress, the courts, and beyond. The ever-greater reliance on executive action in the face of entrenched congressional paralysis on this issue will inevitably engender new legal challenges, as has been the pattern over the last several presidencies, potentially leaving actions in limbo for years. And the next president likely will inherit a narrowly divided Congress, setting the stage for continued legislative inaction on immigration.
All the same, the Democratic Party’s convergence with Republicans on border security, brought on by three years of unprecedented border arrivals and overwhelmed cities, ushers in a new chapter in the debate. It has led to one area of agreement: the tools available to manage the southern border are inadequate for current migration patterns and changing migrant demographics, and new modes of management—including limiting access to asylum for those arriving without authorization—must be employed. But as is often the case, the devil is in the details, and in other ways the parties remain as far apart as ever.
Campaign ads, speeches, debate rhetoric, and party platforms offer a glimpse into two possible futures on immigration. But it is equally important to look back at the governing policies and actions of the Biden and Trump administrations. And to recall how unpredictable events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the hasty and troubled withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and unrest in Haiti and Venezuela all tested the government’s immigration approaches. Almost surely, the next president will similarly be confronted with crises that test the U.S. immigration system and further shift the political grounds.
The authors thank Julia Gelatt for her assistance.
Sources
Adeosun, Adeola. 2024. Donald Trump Warns Getting Migrants Out Will Be a ‘Bloody Story.’ Newsweek, September 7, 2024. Available online.
American Immigration Council. 2024. An Analysis of the Senate Border Bill. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council. Available online.
Daniels, Eugene and Elena Schneider. 2024. Harris Promises to Go Tough on Border Security. Politico, August 9, 2024. Available online.
Democratic National Committee (DNC). 2024. ‘24 Democratic Party Platform. Washington, DC: DNC. Available online.
Esterline, Cecilia. 2024. Project 2025: Unveiling the Far Right’s Plan to Demolish Immigration in a Second Trump Term. Washington, DC: Niskanen Center. Available online.
Hogan, Megan. 2024. Trump vs. Harris on Immigration: Future Policy Proposals. Peterson Institute for International Economics blog post, September 9, 2024. Available online.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2024. Sharply More Americans Want to Curb Immigration to U.S. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available online.
Kafura, Craig. 2024. Democrats and Republicans Starkly Divided on Immigration Policy. Chicago: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Ipsos. Available online.
Murdock, Kylie and Lanae Erickson. 2024. What Do Voters Want from VP Harris on Immigration? Third Way blog post, September 16, 2024. Available online.
Murray, Mark. 2024. Poll: 20 Point Deficit on Handling the Economy Highlights Biden’s Struggles against Trump. NBC News, February 4, 2024. Available online.
—. 2024. Poll: Newly Popular Harris Builds Momentum, Challenging Trump for the Mantle of Change. NBC News, September 22, 2024. Available online.
Paybarah, Azi, Clara Ence Morse, Jonathan Baran, James O’Toole, and Irfan Uraizee. 2024. Republicans Flood TV with Misleading Ads about Immigration, Border. The Washington Post, August 18, 2024. Available online.
Paz, Christian. 2024. How Is Kamala Harris Getting Away with This? Vox, August 28, 2024. Available online.
Pew Research Center. 2024. Amid Doubts About Biden’s Mental Sharpness, Trump Leads Presidential Race. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available online.
—. 2024. How Americans View the Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border, Its Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available online.
Republican National Committee (RNC). 2024. 2024 GOP Platform: Make American Great Again! Washington, DC: RNC. Available online.
Ruiz Soto, Ariel G., Julia Gelatt, and Jennifer Van Hook. 2024. Diverse Flows Drive Increase in U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) commentary, July 2024. Available online.
Sacchetti, Maria, Anthony J. Rivera, Abbie Cheeseman, and Justine McDaniel. 2024. Harris vs. Trump on Immigration: Where They Stand on the Issue. The Washington Post, September 10, 2024. Available online.
Sellers, Christine. 2024. Fact Check: Have 21 Million People Been Let into the U.S. under the Biden-Harris Administration? Check Your Fact, September 18, 2024. Available online.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS). 2024. Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly Tables. Updated September 10, 2024. Available online.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2024. Nationwide Encounters. Updated September 16, 2024. Available online.
Wolf, Zachary. 2024. Trump Explains his Militaristic Plan to Deport 15-20 Million People. CNN, May 1, 2024. Available online.
Yilek, Caitlin et al. 2024. Trump’s Policy Plans and Platform on Key Issues for the 2024 Election. CBS News, September 11, 2024. Available online.
Please visit:
Our Sponsor