“It’s in their genes,” declared Donald Trump about immigrants earlier this month in an interview on The Hugh Hewitt Show, claiming that they bring “bad genes” into the United States. He criticized Vice President Harris’s border policies, linking immigrants to crime and calling them murderers.
As the election season heats up, the conversation about border security, crime rates and immigration policy intensifies. Yet, behind the politics, real lives are at stake. The immigration debate cannot just be a political one, but a humanitarian one as well.
During his 2016 campaign, Trump built a narrative around constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Fast forward to 2024, and his focus has shifted toward reinstating stringent immigration and asylum policies. He has also directed sharp criticism at Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her Biden’s “border czar” and blaming her for the current border challenges. His approach emphasizes the idea that stricter policies will solve the border crisis and suggests that a strong hand is the best way forward.
As the election approaches, it has become clear that immigration is a major priority for many voters. Surveys show that 55% of American adults want immigration levels reduced, marking the highest percentage since after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Despite broad support for lower levels of immigration, it remains a partisan issue. Republicans and Independents lean towards decreasing immigration levels, while many Democrats support maintaining the current levels. These contrasting perspectives make immigration a key issue that candidates must navigate, balancing public sentiment with practical solutions.
For Trump, the border issue is not just a campaign topic but an existential issue. The U.S. has seen a significant rise in migrant encounters, referring to Border Patrol arrests of migrants who cross into the U.S. without legal authorization. Over two million cases were registered by the U.S. Border Patrol in 2023— an all time high.
Addressing this situation requires a broader perspective that looks beyond numbers to consider the stability, security, and well-being of all residents. Yet, recent actions have shown that policy shifts can have an impact on reducing unauthorized border entries. For example, in June 2024, illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border fell to a three-year low after President Biden’s move to curtail asylum, coupled with Mexico’s efforts to control northward migration. This decline suggests that stricter measures can be effective, but it does raise questions about the cost of such strategies.
Implementing stringent border policies comes with a hefty price tag. The federal government has spent around $409 billion on agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, alongside significant investments in border barriers and other infrastructure such as border fencing and surveillance towers.
Despite this, Congress has often neglected to match these expenditures with funding for the immigration court system. Between 2003 and 2024, for every $1 spent on immigration courts, $24 was allocated to ICE and Border Patrol. This underfunding has led to severe backlogs in the courts, delaying those seeking legal authorization in the U.S.
The disparity reveals a critical flaw in the enforcement-focused approach: it addresses immediate border security but does little to support fair and efficient processing within the immigration system, particularly for those on a rightful path to obtaining legal authorization in the U.S.
Such a strategy may make sense on the surface, but it fails to consider the human impact of such policies. High investments in enforcement do not guarantee humane treatment for those facing deportation. Reports show that many unaccompanied children endure verbal and physical abuse while in Border Patrol custody. Additionally, over 200 officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection face allegations ranging from bribery to drug smuggling. These incidents raise serious ethical concerns about the treatment of migrants in detention centers.
Trump’s rhetoric about “bad genes” further complicates the issue. His language frames migrants as inherently dangerous, casting a shadow over those who seek a better life in the U.S. Such generalizations risk dehumanizing people who have already faced significant hardship and create an atmosphere where harsh treatment can be justified as necessary. When leaders propagate such ideas, it becomes even more challenging to foster a compassionate approach to those at the border.
Immigration policy shapes the lives of countless families, balancing security and humanity. It’s about finding solutions that address the unique challenges of border regions while embracing the needs of the broader community. At its core, this debate tests the values of opportunity, fairness and compassion. A policy focused on exclusion risks compromising the American dream. But, a balanced approach that blends security with care, can hopefully honor the dignity of those seeking new beginnings.
