Harris, on the other hand, chose to critique Trump's policies by focusing on their legality. She argued that many of his actions were legally questionable, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional principles.
Immigration is undeniably one of the most complex and polarizing issues in American politics, and Harris's campaign approach only underscored this complexity. While she leaned heavily on the legality of Trump's actions, this focus may have masked a deeper truth: immigration reform is a challenge that neither party, including the Democrats, seems eager to fully solve.
For Democrats, the issue is a double-edged sword. On one hand, they champion humanitarian values, advocating for pathways to citizenship and protections for undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, taking decisive action—whether tightening border security or granting amnesty—risks alienating key voter blocs. The result is often a cautious, piecemeal approach that avoids addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration or the systemic flaws in the current system.
Harris's reliance on legal arguments might reflect this broader hesitation. By focusing on the legality of Trump's policies, she avoided proposing bold reforms that could have sparked controversy within her own party. This strategy, while safe, may have come across as out of touch, especially to voters who see the immigration system as broken and in need of transformative change.
The irony is palpable: while Harris criticized Trump's policies for their legal shortcomings, her campaign offered little in the way of a compelling alternative. This dynamic highlights a broader issue within the Democratic Party—a reluctance to fully confront the complexities of immigration, perhaps because doing so would require difficult compromises and risk political capital. In the end, this hesitation may have contributed to Harris's inability to shine on this critical issue.