The close US presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump could be decided on the issue of immigration, and either outcome would have implications for Canada.
While the economy has been identified as a top concern among American voters, immigration is not far behind, with more people saying they want tough border controls.
Polling by Gallup It found that a majority of Americans want to reduce immigration levels. The number who say so — 55 percent — is the highest since 2002. Although 64 percent say immigration is generally a good thing for the country, that number is the lowest in 10 years.
Trump has built much of his campaign around tackling unauthorized or “illegal” immigration, with policy proposals including mass deportations and other severe crackdowns. Although Harris generally supports immigration, she has called for more conservative policies compared to previous Democratic platforms — in line with other countries, including Canada, that have begun imposing entry restrictions.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Immigration Minister Mark Miller announced last week that Canada will reduce the number of new permanent residents in the country by 21 per cent by next year.
“Not that long ago, it was a conversation about immigration, whether you were a Republican or a Democrat… and there was a problem, but also immigrants were part of the solution,” Erin Corcoran, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said in 2015. Indiana who studies immigration policy.
“This has changed a lot.”
Here’s how the candidates’ immigration programs compare, and what the potential impact is on Canada.
Harris’ position on immigration has been largely defined by two priorities: continuing asylum restrictions imposed by the Biden administration and supporting a bipartisan immigration reform bill that died in Congress earlier this year.
In June, US President Joe Biden issued a presidential proclamation barring migrants from granting asylum when US officials deem the southern border with Mexico to be overcrowded.
The measure took effect immediately because about 4,000 people were entering the United States each day through that border, far above the 2,500-person cap that triggers the new policy.
Harris suggested that these restrictions would remain in place despite opposition from immigration advocates.
Biden’s action came after the US Senate twice failed to pass legislation brokered between Republicans and Democrats that would have imposed similar restrictions on crossings, along with stricter standards for asylum applications.
The bill would also have funded the hiring of 1,500 additional U.S. Customs and Border Patrol employees and 1,600 additional asylum officers to speed up processing and enforcement.
Harris has pledged to “bring back” this bill and sign it into law as president, while pursuing additional legislative reforms to the immigration system, including an earned path to citizenship.
Get daily national news
Get the day’s top political, economic and current affairs news, headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
Trump was accused of inciting Republicans against the bill in order to keep the immigration issue alive in his election campaign.
As vice president, Harris was tasked with addressing the “root causes” of migration from Central and South American countries in order to stem the flow of migrants at the U.S. border. This work has led to the establishment of processing centers in several of those countries, starting with Guatemala and Colombia, where migrants can apply to enter the United States before making the perilous journey north.
Harris was weighed in by Biden’s record of overseeing a significant spike in migrant encounters at the southern border during his presidency, though those numbers have declined significantly since December.
Trump’s immigration policies focus almost entirely on illegal immigration, and are far more restrictive.
He has pledged to launch the largest deportation operation in US history, focusing on criminals, but aims to return at least 10 million illegal immigrants to their countries of origin.
Recently, Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, said deporting 1 million people a year would be “reasonable.”
Trump has suggested using the National Guard and even federal troops to assist in operations, and has not ruled out building new immigration detention camps to house those awaiting deportation.
He has called for the hiring of 10,000 additional Border Patrol agents, which he says will be accomplished by convincing Congress to approve pay increases and signing bonuses to attract new recruits.
He intends to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrant parents, abolish humanitarian parole, and impose “ideological vetting” on immigrants and refugees. In the wake of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, he said he would deport and cancel visas for foreign student demonstrators who are pro-Palestinian.
Trump also pledged to reinstate measures from his first term, including restrictions forcing asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed, and completing his long-awaited wall along the southern border.
Trump and his allies have portrayed immigrants as the root cause of everything from increased crime to rising housing prices in the United States, but researchers disagree.
“It’s much easier to blame others than to deal with some of the underlying structural problems,” said Irene Blomraad, co-director of the Center for Immigration Studies at the University of British Columbia.
How might Canada be affected?
Scholars and economists agree that a Harris presidency, like a Biden presidency, is likely to be more cooperative with Canada in resolving shared immigration issues, while a Trump administration will be more combative and likely to produce more spillover effects.
Canada has faced pressure to do its part in reducing immigration into the United States across the northern border, where migrant encounters have risen in contrast to southern crossings. Canada’s vetting procedures are also under renewed scrutiny after the arrest of several alleged terror attack plotters — one of whom authorities say was planning an attack in New York City.
“Anything related to the border poses disproportionate risks to Canada, because we don’t want the United States to act unilaterally. We’ve seen with Mexico what that would do for us,” said Christian Lebrecht, a professor at Queen’s University and the Royal Military College and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. “.
Experts say a Harris presidency may put some public pressure on Canada to adopt tougher border screening and immigration measures, but will likely keep most of the talks behind the scenes and through diplomatic channels. Republicans in Congress are likely to pressure Harris and Canada to take a tougher approach.
But they add that Harris’ plans to balance restrictions on asylum and irregular migration with more pathways for legal immigration would be consistent with Canada and other Western countries, potentially leading to a more balanced solution to global mass migration.
“(Canada does not) see the issue of immigration management as a border issue,” said Dr. Anna Triandafilidou, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and the Canada Research Excellence Chair in Immigration and Integration, adding that it is unsustainable to view the issue strictly through a border security lens.
“The only way to manage migration at the border is to be prepared to shoot people.”
Trump’s policies, which focus primarily on the border, could have far-reaching effects.
Experts who spoke to Global News said mass deportation plans, for example, could prompt illegal immigrants to flee to Canada, which could overwhelm borders and social services in provinces and territories.
Changes under the Trump administration to temporary protected status for Haitians who have fled to the United States helped spark an influx of migrants seeking asylum at the Roxham Road border crossing into Quebec, leading to an expansion of the Safe Third Country Agreement between the United States and Canada last year. year.
When asked in the House of Commons this week whether the government had a plan if Trump’s election led to a “flood” of migration from the United States to Canada, Immigration Minister Mark Miller simply replied: “Yes.”
The Scotiabank Economics analysis was released in April He predicted that the mass deportation of ten million people would also result in a loss of approximately one per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Temporary foreign workers, many of whom work in Canada, are more likely to be deported, economists said.
In a Pew Research poll conducted in OctoberA majority of American voters across party lines recognized that illegal and legal immigrants take jobs that American citizens do not want.
Ultimately, Canada will need to try to work with whatever U.S. administration comes next to resolve immigration issues together.
“The face of immigration is changing. What it means to be persecuted is changing. It’s not just about economics or political or religious persecution, it’s about climate change as well,” Corcoran said.
“This will take a global effort to solve. Right now, we don’t have what it takes.”
