In the weeks after former President Donald Trump stood on a debate stage and declared (falsely) that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets, another presidential candidate stood literally and rhetorically with the falsely accused community.
It wasn't Vice President Kamala Harris or her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
It was Chase Oliver, the Libertarian, who visited Springfield last month to eat, chat, and attend church in the town that was unwillingly thrust into the center ring of this stupid political circus thanks to a missing cat (that was later found alive), a bunch of social media post, a literal Nazi, and then the likes of Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio).
"It is clear that this is a city suffering a trauma brought on by false social media posts and a GOP candidate who was happy to stoke those flames of division," Oliver told Reason. "The people are tired and didn't deserve all of this unwanted attention brought on by rumor, speculation, and bigotry toward immigrants."
Oliver's response to the controversy in Springfield has been markedly different from what Harris and Walz have done—and the difference matters.
Yes, Harris did a fine enough job of laughing at Trump's absurd claims when the two candidates faced one another at that debate last month. In the weeks since then, however, Harris has missed an opportunity to do what Oliver has done. It's one thing to attack Trump and Vance for being deliberately unhinged from reality (which they are). It's quite another to make an affirmative case about the importance of immigration and the fundamental value of immigrants as human beings.
Tonight's debate between Walz and Vance will offer another opportunity for that to happen—because we will almost certainly be treated to another round of discussion about the Haitians in Springfield, and about immigration in general.
When that discussion inevitably occurs, I'll be watching to see how Walz handles it. Can he move beyond the snark and mockery of Vance's absurd claims? Will he make a real defense of immigration and of the temporary protected status (TPS) program that allows Haitians to come here to work, legally, and that Vance says should be abolished?
To be clear, there is a wide gap between what Trump and Harris are promising to do with regard to immigration. Trump wants "the largest deportation operation in American history" and has threatened to end birthright citizenship (which would be almost impossible to do since it would require amending the Constitution).
Harris used to support decriminalizing border crossings, but she's now flip-flopped toward what might be called a kinder, gentler immigration restrictionism. She would expand a Biden administration executive action that limits asylum to make it more restrictive and would "ramp up prosecutions of those who illegally cross the border," Axios reported last week.
And, yes, she goes through the motions when it comes to immigration. The son of a Mexican immigrant introduced Harris at her rally in Las Vegas this weekend, and Harris of course uttered the usual rhetoric about the importance of immigrants in American culture.
Politically, being less willing to spread wild lies and having a less harsh immigration plan than Trump might be all that Harris needs. Indeed, much of the Harris/Walz campaign is premised on the idea that Trump and Vance are dangerously unelectable and that the Democratic ticket is therefore the only viable alternative.
In doing so, Harris and Walz are merely following the polls. There's been a sharp drop in the number of Americans who support higher levels of immigration in recent years. That likely reflects both recent economic issues and the effectiveness of Republican messaging on immigration.
On important issues, leadership requires an attempt to change public opinion—rather than being led by it. Being less authoritarian than Trump and Vance might be good enough to win the election, but it's a strategy that effectively surrenders immigration policy to the Republican Party (and to Trump) in the long run. It's a strategy that signals to all Americans that a restrictionist approach is the only way forward—and that the only debate ought to be over how best to impose those restrictions. That will only tie Harris' hands in the event that she wins.
And it's just wrong. Maybe not as wrong as spreading vile lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets, but still wrong. Immigration is one of America's strengths, and it always has been.
Harris and Walz don't have to go all-in on solving the asylum crisis or decriminalizing the nonviolent act of crossing the border. Let's start small. Talk about why immigration is good! Talk about how the Haitians in Springfield have helped the town. Talk about why the TPS is important, and why Vance is wrong to liken it to illegal immigration. Talk about how immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to start businesses relative to native-born Americans. Talk about how legal immigration will shore-up Social Security and reduce the federal budget deficit. Take a page out of Oliver's campaign and actually show up to defend the targets of Trump's and Vance's bigoted attacks.
America deserves a major party presidential candidate who will make this argument, or else the country will never escape this immigration policy doom loop.
Walz will have a chance to reframe the debate tonight, and his choice in that moment—a choice that will reflect days if not weeks of preparation from the campaign—will speak volumes. Democrats have already scored all the points they can by underlining how detached from reality Trump and Vance have become. Now is the time to provide a substantive rebuttal.
The post Will Tim Walz Offer an Affirmative Case for Immigration at Tonight's Debate? appeared first on Reason.com.
