Former U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed his first major television spot against his new opponent in the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris. The advertisement zeroes in on what he says is her failed record as “border czar.” Drugs, crime, and terrorism are all a result. As viewers see ominous images of migrants crossing the border while Harris dances, the narrator closes by saying: “Failed. Weak. Dangerously Liberal.”
It isn’t a surprise that Trump would start with immigration as his opening salvo. And that’s not because this topic has been important to Trump since he announced his first presidential run in 2015, or because the issue is more pertinent than others in 2024. Rather, going after immigration taps into a set of ideas that has become deeply rooted in the GOP. To understand how anti-immigrant rhetoric became woven into Republican politics, it is necessary to look back to Harris’s home state of California during the 1990s—a time when nativism, law and order, and partisanship all converged as the Cold War came to an end. Rather than boasting about being tough on communists, Republicans since that period have invested much of their political capital in talking about being tough on the border.
The hardening of Republicans on this issue signaled a remarkable shift. For much of the 20th century, nativist factions within the Republican Party had been forced to compete with a formidable pro-immigration tradition. When then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan worked with Democrats in Congress in 1986 to pass sweeping bipartisan reform that imposed stricter penalties on businesses hiring undocumented immigrants, the president also granted amnesty for almost 3 million people and created an agricultural worker program for undocumented immigrants. “Our nation is a nation of immigrants,” Reagan had proclaimed. Business leaders allied to the supply-side revolution staunchly defended liberal immigration policies as something that brought tremendous benefits to the economy.
But following Reagan’s second term, the Republicans started on a different, rightward road. It began in California, and it brought them to today’s ad.
By the early 1990s, Californians were not feeling so golden. Major cities such as Los Angeles struggled with the crack cocaine epidemic as well as gang violence. Urban blight had left many neighborhoods in shambles. The entire state slipped into an economic recession during the 1990s. Boom times went bust as unemployment rose.
More and more white Californians blamed immigrants for the state’s woes. Latinos and Asians had grown into a significant portion of the population following President Lyndon Johnson’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Once welcome as the embodiment of the American dream, during the downturn immigrants were said to be responsible for rampant crime, the rising cost of social services, and the exodus of factories. Critics tapped into old nativist traditions that had flared in different periods such as the 1920s.
Several key players drove the conservative turn. In Los Angeles, Chief of Police Daryl Gates had ruled the city with an iron fist throughout the 1980s, allowing his forces to trample on civil liberties and target minority populations in his ongoing effort to clean up the city. Although Gates instructed police to avoid enforcing immigration laws to obtain cooperation in criminal investigations, his officers were downright brutal in how they treated disadvantaged populations. Under Operation Hammer, which Gates launched in April 1987 and closed down in 1990, the Los Angeles police conducted massive raids that rounded up Hispanic and Black American youth who happened to be in a given vicinity, regardless of how much evidence existed about their being possibly guilty of a crime. Racial profiling and physical harassment were standard. He was Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry come to life. In an era when tough policing was lionized among Republican candidates and valorized in popular culture, Gates emerged as a heroic figure in law and order circles—until the urban unrest in Los Angeles in 1992, following the Rodney King beating, finally led to his downfall.
Gov. Pete Wilson, elected in 1990, was likewise pivotal. Facing a tight reelection race in 1994, Wilson championed Proposition 187, a measure to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving basic non-emergency social services such as education and health care. His campaign in support of the “Save Our State” initiative broadcast blistering television ads that presented the darkest possible images of immigrants. Although he had rarely talked about these issues as a senator in the 1980s (in fact, he had supported greater access to immigrant labor for the agricultural industry), Wilson now staked much of his political future on the issue. “They keep coming,” warned the narrator in one ad, as viewers saw grainy images of people running through the border security. His bet paid off. On Nov. 8, 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, 59 percent to 41 percent. Though the measure would become tied up in the courts, its popularity and Wilson’s victory signaled to Republicans all over the country that this was a winning issue.
Conservative grassroots activists kept the issue alive in the 1990s. One of the most important was Barbara Coe, who gained attention through her advocacy for Proposition 187. Coe emerged as one of the state’s fiercest champions of the nativist ethos. She founded the California Coalition for Immigration Reform to support Proposition 187. Often dressed in red, white, and blue garb, Coe, who was in her 60s, became a familiar face on the statewide media circuit, where she could be seen on television making one provocative statement after another about how “illegals” were destroying communities. In 1998, the organization purchased a massive billboard along Interstate 10 that read: “Welcome to California, the Illegal Immigration State: Don’t let this happen to your state.” Coe worked with an energetic network of activists including Ronald Prince, Les Blankhorn, and William King.
National Republicans picked up on the issue. Although many Republicans had initially stayed away from anything that Republican primary candidate Pat Buchanan had to say in 1992, including when he called conditions at the border “a national disgrace,” by the mid-1990s the party was singing a different tune. California was putting the immigration issue on the map. As a top advisor to President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, warned in 1993: “Immigration is emerging as the most powerful political issue in California, and the Administration must begin to deal with it.” On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich pushed in 1996 for a major bill that ended the welfare system put into place by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935. His efforts gained traction as Clinton agreed to work on this bill, though it was much harsher than the kind of welfare reform the president had initially promoted. The result was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which sharply curtailed social safety net benefits for non-citizens. In 1996, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Robert Dole ran an ad on “illegal aliens” that warned of “2 million illegal aliens in California” filling prisons, crowding schools, and costing billions of tax dollars. Clinton, the ad said, “fought California in court, forcing us to support them. Clinton fought Prop. 187, cut border agents, gave citizenship to aliens with criminal records. We pay the taxes. We are the victims. Our children get shortchanged.”
Congress also tightened restrictions on immigrants as part of the counterterrorism legislation passed after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City attack in 1995, and 9/11, including increasing the number of people eligible to be deported and raising the bar for obtaining legal status within the country.
The hard-line Republican immigration agenda focused attention almost exclusively on undocumented immigrants and the dangers they posed, pushing aside discussions of immigrants who arrived legally or undocumented immigrants who ended up naturalizing and becoming upstanding citizens. The rhetoric exaggerated crime, murder, and drugs while shifting attention away from the economic, cultural, and social benefits that social scientists have repeatedly shown were a result of immigration. The stories from the early 20th century of immigrants making America great were replaced with shady images of immigrants undermining our well-being.
The Republican road from California to Trump was not inevitable. President George W. Bush, who expanded the Republican Hispanic vote in 2004 from 1996, pushed for a grand bargain in his second term that would have provided a legal path to citizenship for almost 12 million people in exchange for tougher border control and deportation measures. Congressional Republicans killed his initiative. Republican Party politics, as historian Sarah Coleman has argued in The Walls Within, congealed around a hard-line restrictionist agenda. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, failed in their efforts to obtain legislation providing for a path to citizenship inxchange for their support of tough deportation and border control policies. While Obama was able to put into place the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program through executive action, protecting certain undocumented immigrants who arrived as children
When Trump’s administration imposed a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, implemented a policy of separating children from their families at the border, ramped up deportation, spent federal funds on building a massive border wall, ended DACA (though SCOTUS overturned his decision) most Republicans cheered. As a surge of immigrants became a bigger problem in Democratic cities in 2022, Republicans ramped up their attacks. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bused undocumented immigrants to blue cities across America. Democrats became defensive.
By 2024, Biden pushed for a bipartisan immigration bill that centered entirely on border control and deportation. The liberalization part of the bargain was gone. Yet even as Democrats caved, Trump persuaded congressional Republicans to kill the deal so that he could run on the issue in the fall.
So what should Harris do? It would be a mistake for her to simply play defense. Doing so won’t stop the ferocity of the attacks. As was often the case with national security during the Cold War, responding with claims to be the tougher party only fuels the narrative of opponents.
Harris’s own personal story is a powerful reminder that we are a nation of immigrants and that immigration has been part of the lifeblood of American society. Her father emigrated from Jamaica. Her mother arrived to the United States from India. Harris also understands, as she wrote in The Truths We Hold, that “for as long as ours has been a nation of immigrants, we have been a nation that fears immigrants.”
In fact, this presidential campaign provides an opportunity for a reset. Democrats have been struggling with this issue for years. Harris has an opportunity to fight back against Republican attacks, not by mimicking the GOP message, but by offering a different vision of what immigration means. She can move beyond what she called the “false choices” that have defined the debate. Yes, the nation needs tough border controls and deportation procedures, but it’s time to remember just how vital immigrants, documented and undocumented, have been and remain for us all.
While continually challenging the veracity of the claims that Trump throws out about what previous border policies have done, the vice president can also tether the broader dialogue to a deep appreciation of immigrants as one of the most defining elements of American history. Most of us have immigrant roots; many of us are immigrants. Immigration has made America great.
Hopefully, with a more constructive conversation, we can begin to bring back the vision of a grand bargain that rationalizes our immigrant system, from better border policies to a path to citizenship. And perhaps the candidate from California, where the rightward turn began in the 1990s, can lead the nation in a new direction in 2024.
The post The New Nativism’s Surprising Origin Story appeared first on Foreign Policy.
