A national issue with personal significance

Immigration is in the news this week, but hardly a week goes by that it isn’t. A federal appeals court will decide the future of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. They’ve been protected from deportation by executive order and a Department of Homeland Security rule since 2012, enabling them to establish lives and careers here. But the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was only meant to be a temporary solution until Congress could get its act together and reform the nation's outdated immigration system. Instead, Congress has done nothing, migration levels have increased, and the whole issue has become even more politicized. That’s basically a running theme when it comes to immigration.

Immigration is an extremely personal issue for me, as the American-born daughter of a Mexican immigrant, and as someone who grew up on the border of the U.S. and Mexico, in El Paso, Texas. I’m a Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who celebrated immigration. Most Republicans of a certain age are…or used to be. It’s helpful to recall that Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill in 1986 that focused on border security but also gave amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. And it was Republicans who sought to honor the wishes of young Elián González’s Cuban refugee mother, while Democrats supported denying him an asylum hearing and sending him back to communist Cuba. That was 25 years ago, but it feels more like a million.

I haven’t changed. I still believe in strong border policies, particularly from a national security perspective, but I miss the GOP that welcomed immigrants and understood the value they bring, culturally and economically. Today, the Republican Party has gone fully nativist. Migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees are demonized, their struggles diminished or used as a political talking point, while the root causes of migration go unaddressed.

I had to laugh last week when Trump had the nerve to tell the shameless lie that FEMA funding was diverted by the Biden-Harris Administration to migrant aid. He was banking heavily on Americans’ short memories with that one, because not only did Trump himself do that, but he also diverted $3.6 billion from 127 military projects in 26 states to build his damn border wall. Which didn’t get done. And wasn’t funded by Mexico.

He used emergency powers to fast-track billions of dollars worth of construction contracts and seize private land through eminent domain, disregarding environmental regulations and other codes in the process. When we informed him that some of his orders were flat-out illegal, Trump said no problem, he would just pardon the officials. And he did all of this after he had already conceded that a wall is far less effective for curbing illegal immigration than a major expansion of U.S. enforcement powers—and much more expensive.

I wish incompetence was the extent of it, but we know better. Trump’s most atrocious immigration policies, like the Muslim ban and the zero-tolerance child separation policy, were driven by white supremacist Stephen Miller. He dictated policies for years, with equal parts ineptitude and maliciousness. He labeled migrants and refugees who had risked their lives to come to the U.S. as “terrorists,” a disgraceful allegation that I and others in the national security community repeatedly refuted. It was later revealed that Miller coordinated with editors at far-right news site Breitbart to shape its immigration coverage before taking his role as a White House advisor. Specifically, he criticized the bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” which drafted a 2013 immigration reform bill. No surprise there.

That attitude among Republicans has persisted and pervaded the party. State-level GOP officials have shipped migrants around the country to troll liberal bastions and score political points with their radicalized base. Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border bill earlier this year because, well, why solve problems when you can cynically use them to help get your preferred candidate elected? The party of Reagan is no more.

The toxic nature of Trump’s immigration policies led Joe Biden to run on the promise of reversing them and expanding legal immigration. When he accepted the Democratic nomination in 2020, he said, “If I’m elected president, we’re going to immediately end Trump’s assault on the dignity of immigrant communities. … We’re going to restore our moral standing in the world and our historic role as a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers.” It was a relief, but it ultimately went a little too far, and reality hit.

As illegal crossings soared and Congress was gridlocked, President Biden took action. Twice. In 2023, as the pandemic-era Title 42 was phased out, his administration implemented an asylum policy similar to Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program. It barred asylum-seekers who did not first apply for asylum while passing through a third country or who did not make an appointment to seek asylum at a southern border port of entry. In June, he issued an executive order that temporarily suspends the right to asylum at the southern U.S. border when the seven-day average of unauthorized crossings exceeds 2,500. These moves were somewhat controversial, but I was glad to see the President address these serious border challenges. They marked a significant but necessary policy shift for Biden that I know was not easy for him. But it was only necessary because Republicans killed the border bill.

Illegal crossings are now at their lowest level since August 2020. Nevertheless, immigration remains right at the top of the list of American voters’ concerns, alongside the economy. Considering that the economy is much stronger than the administration gets credit for, it might be the top issue on both sides. The choice before us is stark.

Donald Trump is even more abhorrent now than he was before. On the campaign trail, he talks about migrants as if they are inhuman, calling them ‘vermin’ who are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ with ‘bad genes.’ In addition to this disgusting rhetoric, a Niskanen Center policy review of Project 2025 reveals some of the plans a second Trump Administration has in store for immigration, the most significant of which is mass deportations. Trump has said he’d use as a model a program offensively known as ‘Operation Wetback’, which employed military tactics to round up and remove migrant workers in the 1950s. Now, he has expanded his sights to include certain classes of legal immigrants too. It would be a humanitarian disaster that could devastate the U.S. economy.

This time around, Trump and Miller will be looking for a Homeland Security Secretary willing to carry out his bidding without question. Not someone like Kirstjen Nielsen or Kevin McAleenan, who each resigned essentially because they were insufficiently loyal to Trump. Someone like Ken Cuccinelli. You remember Ken, right? He was the hard-liner who tried to repeal birthright citizenship and illegally held the roles of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services when Trump skirted the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. That’s the kind of guy Trump wanted in charge of DHS—and still does.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has touted her bona fides prosecuting transnational criminal organizations and aims to pass legislation that would fortify the southern border. Immigration is a tough, complex issue, but a compassionate, pragmatic approach like Reagan’s—tempered with new lessons learned by observing two very different presidents—is still the best policy.

We need clear, humane pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are contributing to our economy and society—not mass deportations that would not only be costly but would have harmful impacts on businesses and families. We need to keep a focus on family reunification and respect for the family unit. No more family separations or family detention.

We have to protect the rights of asylum seekers and ensure fair and efficient processing of their claims. But we also have to help local governments successfully integrate new immigrant populations into their communities. We need smart investments in border security that balance enforcement with human dignity. But we also need to strenuously challenge anti-immigrant sentiments and reject policies based on discrimination and xenophobia.

Finally, we need to address the root causes of migration, including economic instability and violence in home countries. This is something we reiterated with Trump many times from a national security perspective when I was in the White House, but it fell on deaf ears. I’ve seen the reality of the border firsthand. I believe Vice President Harris is best suited to address all of these issues, and she has my full support. She has the experience and vision to protect our country while upholding our values. We need real solutions, not political theater.

Whenever Trump cranks up his ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric, I can tell right away by the emails and tweets I receive telling me to “go back to Mexico.” I was born here. My mom and family immigrated here and proudly became American citizens. They worked their asses off as migrant farm workers, long-distance truck drivers, and hard laborers so that their kids, like me, could succeed.

When Trump says immigrants are taking “Black and Hispanic jobs,” he implies that these communities are only suited for certain types of work. For the record, this Hispanic served as assistant to the Secretary of Defense, advisor to two heads of intelligence agencies, and as homeland security/counterterrorism advisor to the Vice President of the United States.

I hope many more generations of immigrants and their children get to pursue the American Dream as I did.

See you next time,

Olivia

Share