This is a multipart series on the different ways the 2024 Presidential Election is likely to affect Texas.
In Texas, immigration is the most important issue for a majority of voters. When Governor Greg Abbott’s approval ratings floundered during the 2022 election following the failure of the Texas electrical grid during Winter Storm Uri and the massacre at Robb Elementary, it was his draconian immigration policies that pulled him through. More than any other issue, the federal government’s response to undocumented immigration will probably decide who carries the state.
First, the facts. The United States currently has roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants. This is a slight decline from the 12.2 million seen during the final years of the George W. Bush Administration, but more than the 10.2 million in 2019 under the Donald Trump Administration. Illegal border crossings rose sharply following the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, though it has recently fallen to a four-year low.
Despite spending more than $4 billion on Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s actions to deter undocumented immigration have been an abject failure. Unable to enforce federal immigration laws, he ordered the arrest of migrants for trespassing, many of whom were later released thanks to possible entrapment. In fact, in the counties where Abbott sent troops to round up migrants, crossings actually increased. Meanwhile, his attempts to barricade the Rio Grande River have added to the hundreds of drowning deaths that were deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s important to understand why undocumented immigration is so high. Asylum seekers are fleeing civil unrest in countries like Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, and Venezuela. These nations are dealing with decades of instability and violence driven by American intervention to prevent left-wing governments from interfering in American business interests. The United States trained many of the right-wing dictators who staged military coups in Latin America over the past century.
The other reason is economical. An undocumented migrant working construction in the United States still makes significantly more than they would at home. The magnetic pull of economic advancement makes many risk the dangers of crossing illegally.
Deciding which presidential candidate would be “better” on immigration depends on what a person’s personal definition of “better” actually means. The issue mixes economic anxiety, xenophobia, labor rights, and nationalism. The fact is, the Texas economy, particularly the building industry, cannot currently function without migrant labor. Native-born workers avoid the building trades, even with wages rising. Some see it as beneath them; others are driven away by poor benefits, the physical demands, and a lack of union support in the state. “Better” could easily mean more immigrants, not less.
That said, the level of undocumented immigration is clearly causing problems, even if the migrants themselves are mostly beneficial. Social services are overrun, migrants are burdened with confusing and sometimes impossible court schedules, and aid organizations are woefully under-funded. Most people can agree the current level of undocumented crossings should be reduced.
Trump had four years to try while president, but his efforts were ineffective. The fantastical border wall he promised stopped after 52 miles of additional barriers (he did replace or reinforce around 450 miles of existing barriers). The new wall portions were shoddily built and did little to stop migrants, who mostly cross at legal crossing points, anyway. A crowdfunded effort to build a wall ended up sending several people, including Trump advisor Steve Bannon, to jail for fraud.
The Trump Administration policy of separating children from families during crossings also had little to no effect on the crossing numbers according to the Center for American Progress. Fear of separation and indefinite detention in America did not significantly change the patterns of migration, particularly for families already fleeing danger in their home countries. Ultimately, it was just an additional cruelty that looked tough and produced no results.
Trump had a negative effect on legal immigration. Through his term, he worked to make the asylum-seeking process more difficult, including increased incarceration. This ramped up considerably during COVID, where he could use health concerns to tighten control of the process. Illegal crossings fell, though that was likely because of the pandemic. Trump’s immigration policy succeeded only in appearing tough while cashing in on the drop in migration during a global plague.
The Biden-Harris Administration has also had four years to deal with the matter. A primary talking point about Vice President Kamala Harris from conservatives is that President Joe Biden made her “border czar” and she failed in that role. This is “mostly false” as rated by the fact-checker organization PolitiFact. Harris was put in charge of leading diplomatic negotiations to reduce undocumented immigration from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. At no point did she oversee border security or enforcement, and she would have had no constitutional authority to do so if she had been.
Her diplomatic efforts, however, paid off considerably. In 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration made agreements with Venezuela to streamline the asylum process in Venezuela to make it easier to apply while still in the country, a program that was expanded in 2023 to include Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The conservative Manhattan Institute calculated this prevented 385,000 illegal crossings. The Biden-Harris Administration also successfully negotiated with the Mexican government to process undocumented migrants passing through the country before they reached the border of the United States, further reducing the flow north.
Still, border crossings remained above 2,000 daily into 2024. The Biden-Harris Administration responded in June by increasing deportations once the number of crossings rose above 2,500. In fact, Biden is the most active border policy president in recent history, easily outpacing Trump in executive orders aimed at dealing with the southern border.
While those actions have been more effective than those of Trump, both fall far short of true border reform. That would need to be decided in congress. Biden-Harris put forth a substantial border reform bill this year, but it was scuttled under criticism from the Trump campaign, who wished to run on the appearance of Biden-Harris failing to secure the border.
Trump has proposed adding 10,000 new Border Patrol agents, which would make it the largest law enforcement group in the country and bigger than most nations standing armies, as well as completing his proposed wall. No framework for a border reform bill to be passed in congress has been put forth.
Harris has focused instead on a path to citizenship for migrants already here, pushing the currently stalled border reform bill, and continuing the work she has done under Biden. While a more extensive and thought-out border policy than Trump’s, with a history of effectiveness behind it, it’s still a little light on hard policy details. Genuine change is likely to be fought over in the legislature.
Texas’s relationship with migrants is complicated and fraught with nationalism and misinformation. Asylum seekers are required by international treaties to be welcomed and processed reasonably, and migrant workers make many Texas industries run. Claims of widespread crime and addiction spread by migrants are untrue, despite occasional violent acts perpetrated by some.
The one point of agreement is that the current level of illegal border crossings is unacceptable. Trump has attempted to reduce that number with cruel policies that did not work, and he has promised most of the same. Harris has had some success with diplomatic efforts to streamline the legal asylum process, which reduced the number of crossings, but did not address the economic factors drawing migrants to the United States.
Further action will need congressional help. In that, Harris has the advantage. Besides her previous career as a senator, the Biden-Harris Administration passed a remarkable number of contentious bills through a divided legislature. By contrast, Trump passed just one major piece of legislation in his term and used his influence as the Republican presidential candidate to stall one reform bill already.
What Trump can promise is cruelty and race-based responses that prioritize deportation, separation, and denial of asylum. Though these do not reduce illegal immigration and, in some cases, increase it, some voters feel these tactics are ends in and of themselves. If that is the definition of “better” on the border, Trump is the clear choice.
Harris has the record of actually reducing illegal immigration. It will still involve a great many new migrants in the country. Assuming a voter has no problem with the latter, she is measurably “better” on the border.
