Immigration Rights

A central theme of Vice President Kamala Harris’ monumental, whirlwind campaign has been charting a path for America to move on from former President Donald Trump. Her ambitious economic agenda is titled “A New Way Forward,” and she leads crowds in chanting “We’re not going back!” at her massive rallies. And yet, there is one specific legacy left by Trump that the Harris campaign seems content not to rock the boat over: immigration. 

Of course, it would be irresponsible to claim the two candidates’ plans are the same. Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is fascistic in nature as he spouts horrifying claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our nation.” Harris remains the obvious, liberal and saner option by far. But it is unmistakable that Trump has managed to enact a backwards, conservative shift in how Americans at large view immigration, in such a way that Democrats have determined that they would not be able to challenge and still win the election. This, to me, is disappointing. 

I am an indelible product of the American project; I am part Anglo-Scot, part Germanic, part Belarusian Ashkenazi Jew, part African American. Were it not for a nation like the United States that embraced immigration as a core value, I simply would not exist. In making this statement, I have no intention to whitewash a long history of anti-immigrant sentiment in America. When Africans were kidnapped from their homes and forcibly brought across the Atlantic, they were not migrants — they were considered property, not people. When Congress passed the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, ending all immigration from Asia and severely curtailing immigration from south and eastern Europe, it was done with the intention of “[preserving] the ideal of U.S homogeneity.”  When President Dwight Eisenhower approved Operation Wetback in 1954, he allowed the U.S. military to use military force in detaining and deporting Mexican immigrants — some of whom were American citizens — from the United States. Wetback is an offensive slur used to describe a Mexican living in the US, especially without official authorization. In these historical instances, we find themes and ideas directly present in the language of Trump: dehumanization, homogeneity and mass deportations. This is what Harris should oppose in totality when she says “we’re not going back,” right? 

If she does, she has been singing a different tune on the campaign trail. Harris and Democrats across the board have taken to signaling their “toughness” on immigration, ceding to Republican demands for “tighter borders” and restricting asylum seekers. A centerpiece of Harris’ campaign has been her support for the “tough” bipartisan border bill that Trump ultimately sank earlier this year. 

This is a smart move, politically speaking. Gallup, a respected pollster, says that in July 2024, 55% of Americans supported decreased immigration, the highest since 2001. But this response betrays the dramatic shift in the political environment created by Trump during President Joe Biden’s tenure as well as Democrats’ refusal to push back. In 2020, support for immigration was at an all time high, with 70% saying they supported either the status quo or an increase.

What happened? Republicans have been able to effectively control the narrative of Democratic weakness on immigration, forcing them onto the defensive. For example, Harris has been saddled with the title of “Border Czar,” insinuating she directly is responsible for the procedures of the southern border with Mexico. Meanwhile, in actuality, Harris was sent by President Biden to Central America countries with the objective of improving conditions “at home” in order to reduce immigration. 

So, what can Harris do if elected? Let’s take a moment to look at two Democratic presidents who stood up on immigration, even when it was costly or unpopular. Under threat of a congressional override, President Harry S. Truman still vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 — written in the midst of anti-communist hysteria — because of its prejudiced quotas. And President Johnson, despite opposition from powerful Southern conservatives, pushed through the 1965 Immigration Act, which eliminated the discriminatory “National Origins Formula” of the 1920s. Put simply in the words of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Tim Walz, “You don’t win elections to bank political capital — you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.” Immigrants are not pawns to advance political agendas; they’re real people whose lives are profoundly affected by policy. If Harris truly wants to be a transformative Democratic President who leads the country forward in a bold new direction, she should take a stand for immigrants.

 — Luke Farberman, ’27

Reproduction Rights

Under any circumstance, any situation.

In this election, few issues are more important to me than abortion, reproductive care and women’s rights. Back in 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected as the 45th President of the United States, drastically changing the narrative on abortion in this country. Because of Trump, three conservative judges were appointed to the Supreme Court, leading to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. 

The consequences of this have been monumental for the women and pregnant people of this country. While I had always been pro-choice, seeing this change and the ramifications of it has been radicalizing. 

There is nothing “pro-life” about limiting access to abortion. In fact, more people die when there are abortion bans in this country. Not only are pregnant people now more likely to die due to complications with pregnancies they actually wanted to carry to term, but for those with unwanted pregnancies, a lack of safe abortion access does not stop the number of abortions being had. People will resort to alternative methods to abort an unwanted pregnancy, no matter the consequences. They will turn to back-alley doctors and coat hangers, and harm themselves in order to prevent it. This is especially true for people of low-income status, as people who have money and access never have to worry about affording life-saving medical care. For women and people living at or below their means, an unwanted pregnancy could drastically change the quality of their life, financially, mentally and emotionally. 

I am also sick and tired of pro-life advocates splitting hairs and nitpicking the circumstances in which abortion should be allowed. You are not smarter or more ethical for wanting to prevent abortions in specific situations, past a certain point or “not in the third trimester.” The fact of the matter is that people who need abortion care and access in their third trimester of pregnancy typically wanted that pregnancy. In these cases, the only times abortion is recommended is when the fetus is not viable or the pregnant person is in danger from the pregnancy. People who genuinely want to be parents are forced to wait until the pregnant person is “too sick” to receive life-saving care. 

Women and pregnant people have died at far higher rates since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the infant mortality rate actually rose 7%. There are a million arguments you can make for abortion but the simple truth is that without abortion, people will die. People will die because doctors are scared to treat patients. People will die because an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating and dangerous. People will die because they would rather be dead than be pregnant. Abortion should be allowed under any circumstance, under any situation, for the sake of human life. 

 — Grace Lassila, ’25

Foreign Policy

In the 2024 election, it’s not just domestic issues like healthcare, education and climate change that are at stake; our foreign policies — how we engage with other nations and balance national interests with global cooperation and peace — reveal just as much about a candidate’s vision for America. In this election, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris each represent a fundamentally different view on America’s role in the world.

Harris’ foreign policy is firmly rooted in a multilateral approach that prioritizes alliances, particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and recognizes that our national security and economic stability are interlinked with the well-being of the global community. I believe that Harris’ commitment to a cooperative global strategy is pragmatic, allowing us to address issues that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can tackle alone.

For instance, her steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression signals a return to reliable U.S. commitments to democracy and human rights abroad. This is in direct contrast to the volatile rhetoric of Trump’s presidency, making Harris’ approach feel refreshingly thoughtful. That said, her policy still leaves room for critique; as someone who cares deeply about social justice and human rights, I believe that she could go further in the Middle East, where her nonpartisan approach sometimes feels like code for silence on critical issues (which we, especially as Brandeis students, are likely very familiar with by now). Harris’ measured approach may certainly be diplomatic, but I would like to see a bolder, more transparent commitment to human rights and peace that doesn’t play both sides of the field and shy away from hard truths — namely, a more vocal approach to the advocacy for Palestinian human rights. A truly balanced approach would show the world that the U.S. values all human rights equally, not just those of our allies.

In contrast, Trump’s “America First” approach raises red flags; having repeatedly emphasized reducing U.S. involvement in global conflicts and suggesting that our commitments to allies and international organizations need to be reconsidered, it is clear to me that Trump sees foreign policy through a transactional lens. To put it simply, this means supporting nations only when it’s convenient for our national interests and cutting off those who might “cost” us in some way.

It is my wholehearted opinion that this approach is not simply just problematic; it’s also dangerous. Turning our backs on our allies and scaling back military commitments might seem like a cost-saving measure, but the reality is that isolationism often leaves the U.S. more vulnerable. For example, reducing support for N.A.T.O. weakens our collective defense and could embolden adversaries who seek to destabilize us. 

Additionally, Trump’s policies on authoritarian regimes are deeply concerning. Under his previous administration from 2017 to 2021, he frequently praised leaders with questionable human records, from Russia’s Vladimir Putin to North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un. Such rhetoric matters! It sends a troubling message to the world that America’s values are negotiable and that the U.S. might look the other way when democracy and freedom are at stake if it serves our interests. For young Americans like myself who believe in universal human rights and global accountability, this stance is more than just disappointing — it’s antithetical to what we stand for. 

However, both candidates fall short on one critical aspect of foreign policy: addressing climate change as the global crisis it is. Yes, Harris has expressed support for international climate efforts, but I’d like to see her take a firmer stance on reducing our nation’s fossil fuel dependency and holding other nations accountable. A comprehensive foreign policy cannot, by any means, deny or ignore climate change, which threatens the most vulnerable populations worldwide and intensifies global instability.

Trump’s position on climate is, frankly, a non-starter; his policies favor fossil fuel production and he has previously pulled the U.S. out of international climate agreements. Ignoring climate change as a pillar of foreign policy is irresponsible, places short-term economic interests over the well-being of future generations and is not a quality that I desire or respect within a potential face of our democracy.

In this election, foreign policy may not be front and center to the extent of other social policies and issues, but it is nonetheless foundational to the world we are building. Harris’ platform is imperfect but rooted in the belief that America should lead through collaboration, not intimidation. Trump’s approach, on the other hand, is a throwback to isolationism and selective engagement that doesn’t address the realities of our interconnected world. As a young voter, I choose a version of America that stands firm in its alliances, upholds human rights and takes the climate crisis seriously; our future depends on it. 

 — Campbell Wood, ’27