Kamala Harris, who was once a strong critic of the southern border wall, has now committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars to continue its construction if she becomes president. This change represents a major shift from her earlier stance, during which she referred to the project as “un-American” under Donald Trump’s administration.
While Harris has adopted a more hawkish stance on immigration, significant differences between her and Trump remain. She still opposes Trump’s policies on family separation and mass deportations.
In her speech at the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris announced her intention to sign the recent bipartisan border security bill. This bill, which Trump encouraged his allies to block, allocates unspent funds toward continuing the construction of the border wall. The bill was negotiated by Senators James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
This represents a stark contrast to Harris’ earlier rhetoric. During her initial presidential campaign in 2019, Harris dismissed the wall as Trump’s “medieval vanity project,” asserting that it would not stop transnational gangs from entering the United States. She also took to social media to criticize the wall, stating in February 2020 that “Trump’s border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won’t make us any safer.”
According to a report from Axios, Senator James Lankford expressed surprise at Harris’ sudden endorsement of the border bill. He pointed out that throughout the months-long negotiations, Harris was notably absent, making her newfound support unexpected. “We never saw any vice president staff here,” Lankford said, adding, “She was a Johnny-come-never. I know she’s talking about it now, but she wasn’t talking about it at all before.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote on X: “Wait till she dyes her hair blonde.”
This shift in Harris’ position on the border wall highlights the complexities of navigating a presidential campaign in a polarized political climate. As she continues to modify her stance on important issues, the question remains whether voters will see these changes as pragmatic adaptability or as a series of flip-flops that could undermine her credibility.
Add Comment