Opinion: What Harris Needs to Remember About California’s Anti-Immigration Past

The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate Kamala Harris should stop touting “border security” and propose a new approach to the immigration debate, an approach firmly rooted in American values ​​of fairness, opportunity and truth-telling.

The contrast with Donald Trump should be an easy sell: The former president is promising to carry out the “largest mass deportation” in the country’s history and issue an executive order denying birthright citizenship to any child born to undocumented residents. These actions would have a devastating impact on millions of people, many of whom have been in the United States for decades. They would wreak havoc on our economy, which not only depends on but is supported by immigrants, both documented and undocumented. And they would irreparably damage our moral standing as a leader in human rights around the world.

While the Republican Party’s embrace of exclusion is frightening, the Democrats’ embrace of policies that falsely equate border security with more restrictive asylum rules, including President Biden’s executive order in June that closes the border to asylum seekers when the number of people reaches certain limits. The hope seems to be that a slightly less cruel approach than mass deportations will satisfy those who sympathize with immigrants but also steer some would-be MAGAists away from the xenophobic abyss.

Harris seemed to be employing that strategy now. infamous remarks from 2021 telling Guatemalans, “Don’t come… If you come to our border, you will be sent back.” While that may have been more of a statement of fact than a threat, it revealed a serious lack of understanding of the forces driving migrants from their homes. It also damaged her—and the administration’s—credibility in immigrant communities; a “serious blemish,” a UC Irvine political scientist told The Times. Her latest talking points—emphasizing going after drug cartels and a border crackdown that Republicans defeated earlier this year—have been trending in the same anti-immigration direction.

So what should Harris say and do? Borrowing her own emerging slogan, she should argue that “we are not coming back” to the politics of division and “build the wall” attitudes. Tough words against immigrants have a short political shelf life. We in California know this story firsthand.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the state’s 1994 Proposition 187, a measure that sought to block undocumented immigrants in California from accessing basic, life-saving services—especially health care and public education for their children. It required every teacher, school nurse, firefighter, and police officer to report anyone they suspected was undocumented. The measure was halted and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, but even without passage, it sparked a counteroffensive on behalf of all Californians.

Three decades later, California’s political situation had changed so much that the state expanded tax relief on income from work, college curricula AND health insurance to undocumented residents. Most importantly, it is now nearly impossible for an anti-immigration candidate to win a state election.

The shift away from exclusion didn’t happen by itself. It initially sparked a tug-of-war between moderates and progressive Californians over how to confront fear and anti-immigration fervor, with some favoring a defensive measure similar to Harris’s current position.

Instead, a grassroots effort to build a multiracial, cross-sector coalition of support for common-sense policies in a state of sanctuary prevailed. In one example, when anti-immigration jurisdictions began using traffic stops to criminalize noncitizens—upending families, communities, and economies, not to mention traffic—the coalition led to the passage of Assembly Bill 60, after more than a decade of fighting, in 2013, giving undocumented immigrants access to a special driver’s license.

Along the way, the process has proven the benefits of inclusion for the state. As The Times reported last week, international migrants have “lifted” the U.S. and California economies, filling and creating jobs and “pumping millions of tax dollars” into government coffers.

Indeed, politicians from the Golden State will probably now remind their listeners that the economy of the country — the world’s fifth largest — is home to more than 10 million immigrants with $383 billion in purchasing power, and 40% of the state’s entrepreneurs are immigrants. Even undocumented immigrants are a proven boon: nationally, they contribute $13 billion more per year more money into the social security system than they can withdraw.

California’s shift away from thinking about Proposition 187 could and should be exported nationally. It’s a ripe opportunity for any political figure, but especially Harris and the Democrats, to look to the future.

Research shows that despite attacks on their existence, immigrants and their children are largely optimistic, a stark contrast to the dark tones of the MAGA movement, which believes that America can only be great if it returns to a mythical, all-white past. Harris should wholeheartedly embrace a more hopeful vision of America, rooted in the facts that prove the contributions of immigrants, rather than be tempted to support Trump’s hateful agenda in any way.

We are both children of parents who were formerly undocumented. We know that immigrants enrich our society, that demonizing newcomers is morally and factually wrong. A bold and courageous commitment to inclusiveness will strengthen the United States, reflect the values ​​of a democratic and diverse nation, and bring us closer to realizing the American dream to which so many, especially immigrants, aspire.

Manuel Pastor is a professor of sociology and director of the Equity Research Institute at USC. Miguel Santana is president and CEO of the California Community Foundation.