If elected president, Harris will join a long line of Democrats all too willing to irreparably harm immigrant communities for political gain.
By Tina Vásquez, Prism
As we approach the presidential election, there has been a flurry of headlines feigning objectivity through euphemistic niceties. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris “talks tough on border.” Harris and Democrats “walk a delicate—and harder—line” on immigration, which, if you didn’t know, is the party’s “biggest weakness” that they are trying to “turn the tables on.”
What do these headlines really convey? The easy answer is Democrats’ “hard-right turn” on immigration. But as a longtime immigration reporter, I know there’s also a more difficult answer: a mainstream media ecosystem that has never had the range, the nuance, or the know-how to report on immigration accurately.

The deeply partisan divide on immigration—one that frames Democrats as the party of open borders and Republicans as the nation’s hard line of defense against the invasion, swarm, influx, [insert your preferred racist language here] of migrants at the border—isn’t merely the creation of pundits and politicos. This rhetoric is also a media fabrication, solidified over decades of irresponsible coverage.
Much like borders everywhere, the cataclysmic conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border are man-made—and if Harris has her druthers, soon they may also be woman-made. If elected president, Harris will join a long line of Democrats all too willing to harm immigrant communities irreparably for political gain.
Because you see, it’s mostly a mythology that Democrats alone usher in more humane immigration policies. I came to more fully understand this when I first reported on immigration full time under President Barack Obama. I covered the administration’s full-fledged assault on Central American asylum-seekers in the form of fast-track mass deportations, the return—and expansion—of family detention, and enforcement operations targeting young people on their way to school. This was deeply unpopular work at the time, and readers often pushed back on the reporting. After all, how could a president who represented progress and adopted the English equivalent of “sí se puede”—a term “rooted in the struggle of working-class Latinos”—so seamlessly become the deporter-in-chief who brought back “baby jails”? To better understand Obama’s trajectory and the frightening machinery he wielded over immigrant communities, you have to revisit former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 laws.
Recent Posts
Wilson in Seattle and Mamdani in New York Back Starbucks Workers Strike
November 16, 2025
Take Action Now “I am not buying Starbucks and you should not either.” By Jon Queally, Common Dreams The mayors-elect in both Seattle and…
‘The Trump Administration Needs to Be Isolated in Its Anti-Science Actions’: CounterSpin interview with Rachel Cleetus on climate complicity
November 16, 2025
Take Action Now Janine Jackson interviewed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Rachel Cleetus about climate complicity for the October 31, 2025,…
Europe Is Regulating AI Hiring. Why Isn’t America?
November 15, 2025
Take Action Now In 2024, the European Union passed the Artificial Intelligence Act, a landmark law that classifies any AI software used in hiring as…
“Gunboat Diplomacy”: U.S. War In Latin America Feared As Hegseth Launches “Operation Southern Spear”
November 14, 2025
Take Action Now “…it’s time for those of us here to stand up and say that where we will not support any attempt to bring back the old…




