A Pro-Immigrant Party Wouldn't Want To Revive the Failed Senate Border Bill

Tim Walz is wrong to insist that it would "keep our dignity about how we treat other people."

As last night's vice presidential debate turned to immigration and border security, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) hammered Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for Kamala Harris' policies and performance on those issues, specifically mentioning "criminal migrants," economic concerns, and incoming fentanyl.

"We all want to solve that," countered Walz. "That's why we had the fairest and the toughest bill on immigration," referring to the bipartisan border security bill unveiled this February. Months of negotiations yielded the sprawling bill, which was spearheaded by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I–Ariz.), James Lankford (R–Okla.), and Chris Murphy (D–Conn.). It faltered after former President Donald Trump and other top Republicans came out against it. Forty-two Senate Democrats voted in favor, with six opposed.

Harris has been pushing for the bill's revival. If she's elected, Walz said, she'd sign it, which "lets us keep our dignity about how we treat other people." That's a stretch.

The bill did include some reforms, such as additional employment- and family-based visas and work authorizations for the family members of certain visa holders. It would have helped protect Documented Dreamers, who were brought to the U.S. legally as children by parents on nonimmigrant visas and may need to self-deport if they don't secure a green card before turning 21. It also included protections for the Afghans evacuated to the U.S. following the August 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

But it also would have ravaged the asylum-seeking process—which is certainly flawed—and likely jeopardized due process and humanitarian protection for vulnerable migrants. The bill's main provision would have significantly limited access to asylum if border crossings exceeded a certain threshold. It would have given Immigration and Customs Enforcement billions to fund more detention capacity and deportation flights. It would have created a hasty screening process and deprived migrants of the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge.

The bill's reforms aside, its restrictions would have made the border a much more dangerous and inaccessible place for people seeking protection. A similar border-buttoning authority during the pandemic didn't prevent crossings, but it did lead to thousands of reported instances of kidnapping, torture, and rape suffered by asylum seekers who were returned to or stopped in Mexico. Fortifying the border against asylum seekers, as the bipartisan bill would've done and as President Joe Biden is now doing, keeps vulnerable migrants in danger.

Harris and Walz's eagerness to defend the failed border bill is a sign of the Democratic Party's rightward shift on immigration and border security this year. The legislation had no grand reform—no pathway to citizenship for undocumented longtime residents, no solution for Dreamers, no farm work visa improvements—to balance the significant asylum restrictions. But the border and immigration have increasingly become liabilities for Democrats (and top priorities for voters), so their messaging has gotten tougher and their appetite for restrictionism has grown.

Congress should work on immigration reform instead of relying on the president to patch up the broken system. As Walz said in yesterday's debate, "You can't just do this through the executive branch." Questions of process aside, this year's bipartisan bill wasn't the silver bullet or the humane solution Democrats keep suggesting.