By Oscar Chacón
July 29, 2024
The simple answer to this question is: long ago. If you are disappointed with how President Biden has handled issues related to immigrants, immigration, and the U.S. southern border, then you should know that President Biden is simply following the footsteps of former presidents Clinton and Obama. As economic anxiety became widely felt within broad segments of our society, particularly in California in the late 1980s and early 1990s, political ideologues and agitators who subscribed to extreme xenophobia and white supremacist beliefs made Mexicans and other immigrants the perfect scapegoats. As a numerically large but poorly organized group of people, Mexicans, Latin Americans, and other immigrants of color became the central subject of a vicious and relentless public relations campaign that painted these immigrants as a threat to the nation.
A powerful early experiment using immigrants, immigration, and the U.S. southern border as an electoral mobilization strategy took the form of an electoral ballot initiative in California in 1994. Xenophobic and white supremacist political forces engineered what came to be known as Proposition 187, which sought to punish immigrants without status, as well as their children, for all the ills California was experiencing at that time. Among other measures, Proposition 187 sought to deny public education access to children of undocumented parents and proposed to deny access to health care for any unauthorized immigrant residing in California. It also made the use of fraudulent documents a felony charge. These documents are often used by unauthorized immigrants to secure employment.
Nearly 59% of California voters voted for Proposition 187. Its language was so boldly unconstitutional, such as denying access to public education to children of undocumented parents, that it quickly became entangled in legal disputes that kept it from ever going into effect. However, what extremist political forces learned with Proposition 187 was the capacity for this type of campaign to have broad public appeal, especially with white voters experiencing economic anxiety and a growing sense of insecurity. In addition, they could leverage the fear of shifting demographics, for in the 1980s, the face of immigration began to change from primarily white Europeans to one dominated by Mexican, Central American, Caribbean, and other immigrants of color.
In 1996, as President Clinton was seeking reelection, immigrants and immigration policy became expendable items in an electoral cycle in which Democrats and Republicans competed for fearful white voters. In the Democratic party’s upper echelons, leaders embraced the idea that to secure the support of white voters, it was indispensable to be tough on immigrants. Thus, President Clinton flipped from a vague pro-immigrant position to firmly embracing an extremist Republican Party-led bill entitled Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). That bill was successfully added as an amendment (or rider, in legislative jargon) to one of the “must-pass” appropriation bills, and it became law in September of 1996.
Since 1997, IIRIRA has been the chief law of the land when it comes to the way we treat immigrants and the way we handle immigration policy overall. Every harm inflicted on immigrant populations since 1997 is the consequence of that law having been enacted. Subsequent efforts to reform U.S. Immigration Policy, even in the case of limited-scope legislative changes attempted or adopted since 1996, have failed to defy the overall premise established through IIRIRA. Fast forward to 2024, the public and legislative conversation about immigrants and immigration policy continues to be centered on the premise of immigrants as a threat to the nation, which is precisely the premise established by extremist political forces in the early 1980s. Sadly, top Democratic Party leaders have remained fixated on the idea that by embracing anti-immigrant positions, they will somehow gain more electoral support from voters, especially white voters.
During the 2020 electoral campaign, Biden promised to file a comprehensive immigration reform bill within the first 100 days of his administration. He delivered on that promise by working with Democratic members of Congress to file a bill very similar to bills previously proposed by Democrats and Republicans since the early 2000s. However, this bill, like its predecessors, did not go anywhere. Republican members of Congress made sure to keep it from ever being considered. This halted bill, as was the case with previous immigration reform bills, did not seek to challenge the narrative that immigrants are a threat and a burden to society.
The Biden Administration did take small steps to defy the profoundly hateful and lies-driven narrative of immigrants imposed by extremist political forces since the 1980s-which became the official narrative embraced by the Republican Party under the leadership of Donald Trump. However, such steps soon gave way to a fully reactive approach to the ultraconservative narrative on immigrants and immigration. Sadly, many Democratic Party leaders still believe that support for immigrants, as well as support for a more generous U.S. immigration policy, are losing propositions when it comes to attracting broad support from voters.
As a result, the Biden Administration finds itself in a rush to position itself as tough on immigration, announcing as many measures as possible to communicate its intention to reduce the number of people arriving at the U.S. southern border and to deploy a tough approach against foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without permission. The timing of these announcements sought to improve the chances of reelection for President Biden’s campaign. What the Democratic Party leadership hoped to accomplish with these actions was to reassure voters, particularly white voters, that Biden was in control and that he was tough on lawbreakers. With President Biden ending his reelection bid, it will be important to see how Vice President Harris, now the Democratic party’s presumptive nominee, continues or changes her proposals when it comes to immigrants and immigration policy.
Considering the multiple ways in which immigrants contribute to wealth generation, demographic health, tax revenues, and the cultural richness of the country, it is a shame that politicians in our country, particularly Democrats, do not have the courage and the wisdom to radically confront hate and misinformation when it comes to immigrants and immigration. Immigrants, all of them, have been a blessing for the nation, as well as for millions of households in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the rest of the world who periodically receive financial support (remittances) from their loved ones working hard in the U.S. and other countries where they have settled.
Firmly siding with immigrants and actively supporting a smarter and more generous immigration policy should be a winning formula for anybody running for elected office. What stands in the way of getting there are Republican and Democratic party leaders who are giving a free pass to extremist political strategists who made it their mission to poison people’s minds with lies and prejudice by appealing to the worst human instincts-namely, distrust, hate, and violence. It is about time for voices of reason to prevail. If people of good faith were to unite our efforts to bring about common sense, understanding, and love into our national conversation about immigrants and immigration, a topic that now divides our nation could become one that unites us. In doing so, we would be making a choice in favor of the common good, mutual understanding, and ultimately, better conditions for us to focus on much-needed changes in diverse public policy areas that, if done right, would result in a better nation for all.
