WorldTimes : Kamala Harris Supports Failed Border Bill for Open Borders

October 15, 2024

A Critical Look at the U.S. Citizenship Act being supported and touted by candidate for US President Kamala Harris.

In essence, the U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 3194) was not a bill focused on strengthening border protection or fixing the flaws in the asylum system. Instead, it was an immigration reform bill with a heavy emphasis on amnesty, legalization, and humanitarian protections for those already in the U.S. While it included some border security measures (like the use of technology), these were secondary to the broader goal of providing legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants.

The bill fell short for those looking for a stronger, more enforcement-oriented approach to immigration. It leaned heavily toward an ideology of integration and supported migrant rights rather than closing loopholes, deterring illegal crossings, or enhancing border security.

The U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 3194) is not focused on securing the border or curbing illegal immigration. Instead, it proposed an immigration reform package designed to offer legal pathways, protect vulnerable populations, and modernize the immigration system with a humanitarian approach. In my view, the bill failed to pass due to its lack of emphasis on border enforcement and its open-border policies, which encouraged more migration rather than prevent it.

While the Act addressed humanitarian concerns, it fell short in providing concrete measures to control immigration and secure the border effectively. This imbalance between reform and security ultimately contributed to its failure to pass, in my view and tens of millions of others.

The U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 3194), introduced in 2021, was a sweeping attempt to reform U.S. immigration policy. Aimed at addressing long-standing issues with the immigration system, it sought to provide pathways to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, modernize border security, and tackle the root causes of migration. However, its failure to pass and the subsequent critiques of its approach to border security raise important questions about the effectiveness of the bill in controlling illegal migration. Was it a genuine attempt to secure the border, or a political ideology leaning more toward open-border policies?

Here’s the analysis:

Humanitarian Provisions Over Security Measures

The U.S. Citizenship Act offers significant protections and services for migrants, which overshadow its security aspects. Key provisions in the bill include:

Care for Children and Families: The bill introduced extensive measures to ensure the well-being of children and families, especially those held in immigration detention. These include guidelines for the humane treatment of children, providing them with adequate food, clothing, medical care, and shelter (BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih). It explicitly prohibited the separation of children from their families as a means to deter migration or enforce compliance (BILLS-118hr3194ih). This was a direct response to controversial family separation practices previously implemented at the southern border.
Medical and Legal Assistance: The bill emphasized the provision of medical care to migrants in custody, including health screenings and treatment for those in need (BILLS-118hr3194ih). It also provided for legal assistance to migrants, ensuring they understood their rights and had access to legal representation, particularly in the case of unaccompanied minors (BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih).
Housing and Humanitarian Standards: Migrants in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody were guaranteed a basic standard of living, with access to clean water, sanitation, and adequate sleeping quarters. Rescue beacons were also to be installed along the southern border to help migrants in distress (BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih).

Border Security; Protection Provisions: Technology and Oversight, No Physical Barriers: Too Soft.

The U.S. Citizenship Act failed particularly regarding its border security provisions. Here’s why many felt it fell short of delivering a robust border control strategy:

Limited Focus on Physical Barriers: The bill did not prioritize the construction of physical barriers (walls or fences) along the southern border. For those who believe in the deterrent value of such structures, this was a glaring omission.
Technology-Driven Solutions: Instead of walls, the bill proposed the deployment of smart technologies such as non-intrusive inspection systems, X-ray scanners, and surveillance equipment at border checkpoints. While these are crucial tools for detecting contraband, their effectiveness in preventing illegal crossings in vast, open areas remains limited.
Elimination of Remain in Mexico Policy: The bill proposed to end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Under MPP, asylum seekers were required to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed. Its removal was seen as a potential draw for migrants, who might now expect to remain in the U.S. while awaiting decisions on their asylum cases.
Judicial Protections and Deportation Limitations: The Act significantly expanded judicial review and legal protections for immigrants, making it harder for authorities to swiftly deport individuals with pending cases. The automatic stay on deportation during judicial appeals may further slow the process, giving migrants an opportunity to remain in the U.S. for longer periods.
Humanitarian Focus: A commendable aspect of the bill is its emphasis on the humane treatment of migrants. Rescue beacons were to be installed along treacherous parts of the border, and border personnel were to receive training on medical care and child welfare. However, for those who prioritize strict enforcement over humanitarian concerns, these provisions might appear too lenient.

The balance between providing protections for immigrants and unaccompanied minors and the needs of legal citizens in the U.S.

Key Considerations

Humanitarian Obligations: The U.S. has international obligations to protect individuals seeking asylum and refuge from persecution, violence, or dire conditions in their home countries. This commitment to humanitarian standards often extends to the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, including children and families. Hower providing higher standards of care for migrants than the nation's citizens reflects a misallocation of resources. Supporters counter that humanitarian protections are essential for migrants founded on principles of refuge and safety.
Resource Allocation: The concern is whether resources dedicated to improving conditions for migrants could detract from services available to U.S. citizens, such as healthcare, education, and welfare programs. If significant funding is diverted to support humanitarian provisions for migrants, it leads to real deficits in services for the nation’s citizens. Policymakers must ensure that improvements for vulnerable populations do not come at the expense of essential services for citizens.
Public Perception: The perception among citizens is that their needs are secondary to those of migrants, especially in times of economic hardship or when public services are strained. This perception fuels political polarization and social tensions.
Long-Term Solutions: Advocates argue that investing in the well-being of migrants can lead to long-term benefits, such as voting, economic contributions to the community, cultural diversity, and the potential for many to become productive citizens. Policies that ensure there is no special treatment of migrants, over and above the existing needs of the nation’s citizens would help build a more inclusive society.

Conclusion

The challenge lies in finding a balance that upholds the U.S. commitment to humanitarian principles for truly asylum seekers while ensuring that a nation's citizens are receiving adequate support and services. Policymakers must engage in open dialogue with stakeholders from all sides, focusing on solutions that ensure that a nation's vulnerable population and low-income citizens are provided the needed resources and support. Promoting a society that respects human rights and provides for all its citizens will enhance social cohesion and community strength.

In SUMMARY, the U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 3194), introduced in 2021, largely focused on amnesty and providing pathways to citizenship for tens of millions of undocumented immigrants already residing in the U.S., rather than strictly reinforcing border protection or fixing the immigration asylum procedures. Here’s a deeper, honest analysis based on my understanding of the bill and its provisions:

Amnesty as the Central Focus

Pathways to Citizenship: The main thrust of the bill was to provide an earned pathway to citizenship for tens of millions of undocumented immigrants who had already been living in the U.S. by January 1, 2021. This included Dreamers (those who came to the U.S. as children), Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and agricultural workers. The bill aimed to regularize the status of these individuals by offering them a clear legal process to gain permanent residency and eventual citizenship (BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih).
Amnesty-like Provisions: By offering legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, the bill was seen by many as an amnesty package, effectively forgiving those who had entered or stayed in the U.S. illegally. While it did require immigrants to meet certain criteria (pay fees, pass background checks, etc.), it ultimately sought to integrate them into the system rather than focusing on enforcement of existing immigration laws.
Family Reunification and Protections: The bill placed a significant emphasis on keeping families together, preventing deportations that would separate parents from their children. It sought to streamline family-based immigration and provide faster processes for reuniting family members. This family focus, though important from a humanitarian perspective, further shifted the bill away from border protection or enforcement (BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih).

Lack of Strong Border Protection Measures

Limited Border Enforcement: The U.S. Citizenship Act did not prioritize traditional border security measures, such as constructing or expanding physical barriers (e.g., walls) or significantly increasing the number of border enforcement personnel. Instead, it relied on technology—such as drone surveillance and enhanced inspection technologies at ports of entry—to monitor the border (BILLS-118hr3194ih). However, technology alone is often insufficient in preventing illegal crossings, particularly in remote areas where physical deterrents are more effective.
No Focus on Closing Loopholes in Asylum Procedures: The bill did not address the well-known weaknesses in the asylum system, such as asylum fraud, backlogged courts, and the misuse of the asylum process to gain temporary entry into the U.S. While it made provisions for improving the treatment of asylum seekers and ensuring their rights during the process, it did not propose tightening the criteria for granting asylum or significantly increasing resources to resolve backlogs (BILLS-118hr3194ih).
Elimination of Deterrent Policies: By proposing to eliminate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy, the bill removed a key deterrent for asylum seekers. Under MPP, individuals had to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed, which deterred some from filing fraudulent or weak asylum claims. Without this deterrent, critics argued that the bill could encourage more asylum seekers to cross the border and remain in the U.S. during lengthy court processes (BILLS-118hr3194ih).

Humanitarian Focus Over Enforcement

Protection of Migrants: The bill prioritized humanitarian protections for migrants, particularly in areas like access to medical care, food, and legal assistance. It placed significant emphasis on ensuring that those in detention centers were treated humanely, especially children and families(BILLS-118hr3194ih)(BILLS-118hr3194ih). This humanitarian focus was a key part of the bill, but it did not do much to deter future illegal migration.
Judicial Protections: The bill also expanded judicial protections for undocumented immigrants, making it harder to deport individuals who had pending legal cases or claims for asylum. This emphasis on protecting migrants from deportation was consistent with its amnesty approach but came at the expense of faster enforcement actions (BILLS-118hr3194ih).