Arizona voters passed Proposition 314, a measure that will allow state and local police to arrest people crossing the US border outside ports of entry and empower state judges to order deportations. The ballot measure passed with just over 62 percent of the vote. Advocates, including the ACLU of Arizona and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, have harshly condemned the measure, warning that it would open the door for racial profiling and harassment for people of color living in Arizona.

The law will likely face challenges, as immigration enforcement is a federal power, and similar state laws have been struck down in the past.

Arizona is no stranger to constitutionally questionable immigration laws. In 2012, the US Supreme Court struck down most of Senate Bill 1070, which made it illegal to be undocumented in the state, ruling that states don’t have the power to punish people for being in the country without documentation.  

In Texas, a similar bill that sought to allow police to arrest people crossing the US-Mexico border outside ports of entry into the state has been repeatedly blocked from going into effect because of legal challenges from the Justice Department and immigration advocacy groups that say the law infringes on the federal government’s sole authority over immigration.

The Arizona and Texas measures are part of a growing number of anti-immigrant proposals from Republican state lawmakers nationwide. The League of United Latin American Citizens—one of the largest Hispanic civil rights organizations in the country—found that state lawmakers had already proposed 233 anti-immigrant bills over a month before Election Day, more than four times the total number from 2020. 

Arizona voters passed Proposition 314, a measure that will allow state and local police to arrest people crossing the US border outside ports of entry and empower state judges to order deportations. The ballot measure passed with just over 62 percent of the vote. Advocates, including the ACLU of Arizona and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, have harshly condemned the measure, warning that it would open the door for racial profiling and harassment for people of color living in Arizona.

The law will likely face challenges, as immigration enforcement is a federal power, and similar state laws have been struck down in the past.

Arizona is no stranger to constitutionally questionable immigration laws. In 2012, the US Supreme Court struck down most of Senate Bill 1070, which made it illegal to be undocumented in the state, ruling that states don’t have the power to punish people for being in the country without documentation.  

In Texas, a similar bill that sought to allow police to arrest people crossing the US-Mexico border outside ports of entry into the state has been repeatedly blocked from going into effect because of legal challenges from the Justice Department and immigration advocacy groups that say the law infringes on the federal government’s sole authority over immigration.

The Arizona and Texas measures are part of a growing number of anti-immigrant proposals from Republican state lawmakers nationwide. The League of United Latin American Citizens—one of the largest Hispanic civil rights organizations in the country—found that state lawmakers had already proposed 233 anti-immigrant bills over a month before Election Day, more than four times the total number from 2020. 

With the Federal Emergency Management Agency reeling from major staffing and funding shortages amid the impact of Hurricane Helene, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused on Sunday to commit to reconvening the House before Election Day to aid recovery efforts. In response to a letter from President Biden urging congressional leaders back to replenish federal disaster loan funding, Johnson said during a Fox News Sunday interview that he’d only do so after the election—all but ensuring the funds will run out.

The Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program offers low-interest loans to businesses as well as homeowners and renters in disaster areas, and is often the largest source of disaster recovery funds available to survivors. In the letter, Biden also reiterated the need for more disaster relief funds for FEMA, which he says will otherwise be forced to pause long-term recovery efforts related to previous disasters.

Earlier this year, FEMA was already forced to implement “immediate needs funding” restrictions, which paused funding for previous disasters. It’s very likely, without additional funding, that the agency would have to do so again, which would delay vital recovery projects and repairs that are essential for communities to rebuild and prepare for future crises.

Johnson pointed to the $20 billion Congress allocated for FEMA as part of a stopgap measure—then returned to his previously scheduled attacks on undocumented immigrants, who Johnson inexplicably blamed for the shortfall. While he did acknowledge that the streams of funding for FEMA’s disaster relief efforts are separate from those used to address immigration relief, he also attacked the Biden administration for supposedly “gleefully” reimbursing NGOs for transporting undocumented immigrants across the country. In reality, migrant relief efforts represent less than three percent of FEMA’s total annual budget—and the shortfall would still be there if these efforts stopped. 

In September of this year, as a response to FEMA implementing such restrictions, the National Association of Counties, along with nine other organizations, wrote a letter asking Congress to provide $6.1 billion in additional funding so FEMA could continue long-term recovery efforts. If every dollar spent in the last fiscal year on FEMA’s Shelter and Service Program—which provides migrant support—went to that end, it would still leave a gap of more than $5.3 billion for FEMA to restore its long-term recovery plans.

And while the $20 billion Johnson mentions did allow FEMA to do so, the stopgap measure was just that: the restrictions could easily come back into force as the total cost of Hurricane Helene continues to rise, and as Hurricane Milton—which is expected to be one of the most intense in history—makes landfall in Florida.      

With the Federal Emergency Management Agency reeling from major staffing and funding shortages amid the impact of Hurricane Helene, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused on Sunday to commit to reconvening the House before Election Day to aid recovery efforts. In response to a letter from President Biden urging congressional leaders back to replenish federal disaster loan funding, Johnson said during a Fox News Sunday interview that he’d only do so after the election—all but ensuring the funds will run out.

The Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program offers low-interest loans to businesses as well as homeowners and renters in disaster areas, and is often the largest source of disaster recovery funds available to survivors. In the letter, Biden also reiterated the need for more disaster relief funds for FEMA, which he says will otherwise be forced to pause long-term recovery efforts related to previous disasters.

Earlier this year, FEMA was already forced to implement “immediate needs funding” restrictions, which paused funding for previous disasters. It’s very likely, without additional funding, that the agency would have to do so again, which would delay vital recovery projects and repairs that are essential for communities to rebuild and prepare for future crises.

Johnson pointed to the $20 billion Congress allocated for FEMA as part of a stopgap measure—then returned to his previously scheduled attacks on undocumented immigrants, who Johnson inexplicably blamed for the shortfall. While he did acknowledge that the streams of funding for FEMA’s disaster relief efforts are separate from those used to address immigration relief, he also attacked the Biden administration for supposedly “gleefully” reimbursing NGOs for transporting undocumented immigrants across the country. In reality, migrant relief efforts represent less than three percent of FEMA’s total annual budget—and the shortfall would still be there if these efforts stopped. 

In September of this year, as a response to FEMA implementing such restrictions, the National Association of Counties, along with nine other organizations, wrote a letter asking Congress to provide $6.1 billion in additional funding so FEMA could continue long-term recovery efforts. If every dollar spent in the last fiscal year on FEMA’s Shelter and Service Program—which provides migrant support—went to that end, it would still leave a gap of more than $5.3 billion for FEMA to restore its long-term recovery plans.

And while the $20 billion Johnson mentions did allow FEMA to do so, the stopgap measure was just that: the restrictions could easily come back into force as the total cost of Hurricane Helene continues to rise, and as Hurricane Milton—which is expected to be one of the most intense in history—makes landfall in Florida.      

On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agency didn’t have enough funding for the rest of hurricane season. Some on the right, including Trump, seized on the moment to attack their favorite scapegoat: undocumented immigrants.

“They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank so they could give it to their illegal immigrants who they want to have vote for them,” Trump falsely claimed during a rally in Michigan yesterday.

Trump: “They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank so they could give it to their illegal immigrants who they want to have vote for them.” pic.twitter.com/r8XDiXWvCA

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) October 3, 2024

FEMA’s response: a fact check page, where the agency denied diverting funds.

Here’s how FEMA funding actually works: Congress allocates disaster relief funds, which FEMA can use for things like direct financial assistance for those in affected areas, delivering essential items like food and water, and funding rebuilding projects from local governments. On the other hand, FEMA’s migrant support efforts go through the Shelter and Services Program, which Congress has to fund separately and which has recently represented less than three percent of their total annual budget.

But FEMA does have a funding problem: it’s struggling to keep up with increasingly deadly natural disasters caused by climate change.

This year, FEMA began operating on what’s known as an “immediate needs funding” basis because of low funds, which meant the agency paused recovery funding for previous disasters and prioritized immediate responses to current disasters. By September 13, the United States had already experienced 64 major disasters that had killed 149 people and cost an estimated $53 billion. Shana Udvardy, a senior climate resilience policy analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a statement that Congress needed to act quickly to supplement FEMA’s disaster relief fund.

Then Hurricane Helene hit. So far, the storm has killed more than 200 people, and over 600 are unaccounted for. Congress did allocate $20 billion as part of the stopgap measure in late September—which allowed FEMA to lift the “immediate needs funding” status—but property damage alone from Helena is estimated to be anywhere between $15 billion and $26 billion, and with only 6 percent of U.S. homeowners having flood insurance, FEMA would have to fund many of these repairs. This 20 billion would also need to be split between the current crisis and efforts to assist with previous natural disasters.

Climate change has led to bigger, more dangerous natural disasters. Helene may have been up to 20 percent wetter over the Southeast and 7 percent windier in Florida’s Gulf due to climate change, according to one group of scientists.

Politicians across the political spectrum have called on Congress to reconvene to address the funding issues. A bipartisan group of twelve senators from the states hit hardest by Helene signed a letter calling on Congress to reconvene before the election to “address the scope and scale of destruction experienced by our constituents.” But Speaker Mike Johnson has resisted these calls, telling the New York Times that “there’s no necessity for Congress to come back.”

While the nation’s most powerful decision-makers decide whether or not to act, undocumented migrants will likely make up a large percentage of those working on hurricane recovery efforts. After Hurricane Harvey caused catastrophic flooding across Louisiana and Texas in 2017, killing more than 100 people, immigrants made up the bulk of recovery-related workers—estimates suggest over 70 percent of these workers were undocumented. Undocumented workers have also played a major role in recovery efforts after Hurricane Michael tore through Florida and Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans.

On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agency didn’t have enough funding for the rest of hurricane season. Some on the right, including Trump, seized on the moment to attack their favorite scapegoat: undocumented immigrants.

“They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank so they could give it to their illegal immigrants who they want to have vote for them,” Trump falsely claimed during a rally in Michigan yesterday.

Trump: “They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank so they could give it to their illegal immigrants who they want to have vote for them.” pic.twitter.com/r8XDiXWvCA

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) October 3, 2024

FEMA’s response: a fact check page, where the agency denied diverting funds.

Here’s how FEMA funding actually works: Congress allocates disaster relief funds, which FEMA can use for things like direct financial assistance for those in affected areas, delivering essential items like food and water, and funding rebuilding projects from local governments. On the other hand, FEMA’s migrant support efforts go through the Shelter and Services Program, which Congress has to fund separately and which has recently represented less than three percent of their total annual budget.

But FEMA does have a funding problem: it’s struggling to keep up with increasingly deadly natural disasters caused by climate change.

This year, FEMA began operating on what’s known as an “immediate needs funding” basis because of low funds, which meant the agency paused recovery funding for previous disasters and prioritized immediate responses to current disasters. By September 13, the United States had already experienced 64 major disasters that had killed 149 people and cost an estimated $53 billion. Shana Udvardy, a senior climate resilience policy analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a statement that Congress needed to act quickly to supplement FEMA’s disaster relief fund.

Then Hurricane Helene hit. So far, the storm has killed more than 200 people, and over 600 are unaccounted for. Congress did allocate $20 billion as part of the stopgap measure in late September—which allowed FEMA to lift the “immediate needs funding” status—but property damage alone from Helena is estimated to be anywhere between $15 billion and $26 billion, and with only 6 percent of U.S. homeowners having flood insurance, FEMA would have to fund many of these repairs. This 20 billion would also need to be split between the current crisis and efforts to assist with previous natural disasters.

Climate change has led to bigger, more dangerous natural disasters. Helene may have been up to 20 percent wetter over the Southeast and 7 percent windier in Florida’s Gulf due to climate change, according to one group of scientists.

Politicians across the political spectrum have called on Congress to reconvene to address the funding issues. A bipartisan group of twelve senators from the states hit hardest by Helene signed a letter calling on Congress to reconvene before the election to “address the scope and scale of destruction experienced by our constituents.” But Speaker Mike Johnson has resisted these calls, telling the New York Times that “there’s no necessity for Congress to come back.”

While the nation’s most powerful decision-makers decide whether or not to act, undocumented migrants will likely make up a large percentage of those working on hurricane recovery efforts. After Hurricane Harvey caused catastrophic flooding across Louisiana and Texas in 2017, killing more than 100 people, immigrants made up the bulk of recovery-related workers—estimates suggest over 70 percent of these workers were undocumented. Undocumented workers have also played a major role in recovery efforts after Hurricane Michael tore through Florida and Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans.

At the first (and likely only) vice presidential debate, JD Vance was asked if Trump’s pledge to implement the largest mass deportation plan in United States history would involve deporting undocumented parents and separating them from their kids born in the United States. Instead of answering the question, Vance misleadingly claimed that the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration had “effectively lost” hundreds of thousands of children.

“Some of them have been sex trafficked, some of them, hopefully, are at home with their families. Some of them have been used as drug trafficking mules,” Vance said on Tuesday night.  

Mass deportations would also result in millions of families becoming poor.

Vance seemed to be referring to a report from August from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, but he got the facts wrong: The report does not say that 320,000 children have been “effectively lost.” What it does say is that between 2019 and 2023—a period that included part of the Trump administration—about 32,000 unaccompanied children missed their immigration court hearings. One possible explanation for minors missing court hearings is that they are very often forced to deal with a convoluted maze of government agencies and subagencies without legal counsel, according to an analysis of the report from the American Immigration Council. The analysis goes on to say that “Immigration enforcement agencies must acknowledge that children need special protections, and Congress should fund legal counsel, to help move them through the maze of government agencies involved. “

The OIG report also says that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had yet to issue notices to about 291,000 minors to appear in court to begin removal proceedings. The 320,000 number Vance is pointing to appears to be a combination of the two numbers—neither of which refers to lost migrant children.

To recap:

There are not 25 million undocumented migrants in the United States.

DHS has not lost track of 320,000 children.

Migrants do not bring fentanyl.

TPS and CBP One (parole) are not "illegal."

— Adam Isacson (@adam_wola) October 2, 2024

Vance goes on to say, “The real family separation policy in this country is, unfortunately, Kamala Harris’ wide open southern border.” His attempt to make it sound like the Trump-Vance campaign cares about the safety of migrant children hides the reality that Trump’s mass deportation plan would lead to the inhumane separation of millions of American families and would have devastating effects. 

About 20 million Americans are living in households with mixed immigration status where some people are undocumented, and others are citizens or have legal permission to live in the United States. Trump’s mass deportation plan would not only harm those 10.3 million who are undocumented and would be removed from the country but also the 9.7 million who have legal status and would have their family members ripped away. Nearly 3.4 million parents would no longer be able to take care of their children because they would be forced out of a country that, in many cases, they have lived in for decades.

Aside from the mass trauma this would cause in millions of children who would be left without one or more parent, it would also have a huge economic impact. One study found that mass deportations would result in the median income of mixed-status households decreasing by almost half and millions of families becoming poor. And as my colleague Isabela Dias has reported, Trump’s mass deportation plan affects not only those in mixed-status households but the country as a whole, with the United States’ economy projected to shrink by almost 6 percent and over 900,000 fewer jobs being available for citizens.

Vance’s misleading claims not only work to distract from Trump’s inhumane mass deportation plan but, more disgustingly, frame their immigration policies as a supposed attempt to help migrant children. The honest answer from Vance on whether Trump would separate families would have been, “Yes, and it would be terrible.”

At the first (and likely only) vice presidential debate, JD Vance was asked if Trump’s pledge to implement the largest mass deportation plan in United States history would involve deporting undocumented parents and separating them from their kids born in the United States. Instead of answering the question, Vance misleadingly claimed that the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration had “effectively lost” hundreds of thousands of children.

“Some of them have been sex trafficked, some of them, hopefully, are at home with their families. Some of them have been used as drug trafficking mules,” Vance said on Tuesday night.  

Mass deportations would also result in millions of families becoming poor.

Vance seemed to be referring to a report from August from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, but he got the facts wrong: The report does not say that 320,000 children have been “effectively lost.” What it does say is that between 2019 and 2023—a period that included part of the Trump administration—about 32,000 unaccompanied children missed their immigration court hearings. One possible explanation for minors missing court hearings is that they are very often forced to deal with a convoluted maze of government agencies and subagencies without legal counsel, according to an analysis of the report from the American Immigration Council. The analysis goes on to say that “Immigration enforcement agencies must acknowledge that children need special protections, and Congress should fund legal counsel, to help move them through the maze of government agencies involved. “

The OIG report also says that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had yet to issue notices to about 291,000 minors to appear in court to begin removal proceedings. The 320,000 number Vance is pointing to appears to be a combination of the two numbers—neither of which refers to lost migrant children.

To recap:

There are not 25 million undocumented migrants in the United States.

DHS has not lost track of 320,000 children.

Migrants do not bring fentanyl.

TPS and CBP One (parole) are not "illegal."

— Adam Isacson (@adam_wola) October 2, 2024

Vance goes on to say, “The real family separation policy in this country is, unfortunately, Kamala Harris’ wide open southern border.” His attempt to make it sound like the Trump-Vance campaign cares about the safety of migrant children hides the reality that Trump’s mass deportation plan would lead to the inhumane separation of millions of American families and would have devastating effects. 

About 20 million Americans are living in households with mixed immigration status where some people are undocumented, and others are citizens or have legal permission to live in the United States. Trump’s mass deportation plan would not only harm those 10.3 million who are undocumented and would be removed from the country but also the 9.7 million who have legal status and would have their family members ripped away. Nearly 3.4 million parents would no longer be able to take care of their children because they would be forced out of a country that, in many cases, they have lived in for decades.

Aside from the mass trauma this would cause in millions of children who would be left without one or more parent, it would also have a huge economic impact. One study found that mass deportations would result in the median income of mixed-status households decreasing by almost half and millions of families becoming poor. And as my colleague Isabela Dias has reported, Trump’s mass deportation plan affects not only those in mixed-status households but the country as a whole, with the United States’ economy projected to shrink by almost 6 percent and over 900,000 fewer jobs being available for citizens.

Vance’s misleading claims not only work to distract from Trump’s inhumane mass deportation plan but, more disgustingly, frame their immigration policies as a supposed attempt to help migrant children. The honest answer from Vance on whether Trump would separate families would have been, “Yes, and it would be terrible.”

Republicans have falsely labeled Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s “border czar” in their attempt to blame her for the number of migrant crossings—which is decreasing. It’s a label Donald Trump used in last week’s debate, in between his multiple hateful, lie-filled rants about immigrants.

In reality, Harris’ role was mostly limited to addressing the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras through task forces focused on corruption and smuggling, and by working with the private sector to expand economic opportunities. That increased collaboration is generally viewed favorably by immigration advocates—but Harris’ focus on deterrence-based policies at the border has been criticized. As the Democratic nominee, she has come out in favor of the bipartisan immigration bill championed by Joe Biden, which would, among other things, allow the Department of Homeland Security to suspend most access to asylum outside of ports of entry when border encounters reach a certain level.

I think the hope is that overall, she’ll be taking a much more humanistic approach to immigration.

Adriel D. Orozco is a senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, which works to improve the immigration system. He believes that cutting off access to asylum based on the number of migrant encounters is the wrong approach to solving the problems of a strained and under-resourced system. Orozco does support the Biden administration’s use of parole to allow people to stay in the United States while they seek residency—he hopes to see Harris continue the practice. I spoke with him about Harris’ approach to tackling immigration challenges as a senator and as vice president, and what advocates hope to see from her administration if she becomes the 47th president.

Republicans have falsely billed Harris as Biden’s “border czar.” What do you think is the basis?

I think that there [were] some inaccurate representations of her work from the beginning: A lot of the headlines that were coming out at the time were focused on her addressing immigration generally, and White House officials said that she would oversee a whole government approach to dealing with immigration. There was a lot of confusion. 

What was Harris’ actual role in the Biden administration when it came to immigration policy?

President Biden announced at a press conference that Vice President Harris would take on a diplomatic campaign to address the root causes [of migration] from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The idea was to think about why folks were leaving that region. She was tasked with increasing public and private sector investment in the area to strengthen the economies. She was also trying to figure out ways to address corruption within the government and address some of the smuggling and human trafficking networks.

But from the beginning, it was meant to be a long-term strategy. It wasn’t meant for her to be focused on the border policy. That was always under the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.

What were the specific goals of the “Root Causes Strategy”?

Really thinking about [the] problems that are occurring in these Northern Triangle countries that are impacting people’s livelihoods and pressuring them to leave the region. She wanted to increase investment, particularly from the private sector, but also investment from other entities like the UN and USAID. Part of it was trying to address some of the networks that were being established around drug trafficking, human trafficking, [and] human smuggling, that were also leading to increased migration levels in the region.

Did the strategy represent a departure from that of previous administrations?

It depends on which administration, but there’s always been an attempt to try to provide investments in the region to support local economies. It was a pretty clear departure from the Trump administration, which was primarily trying to bolster the enforcement mechanisms within these countries to stop migration. So this was a departure in the sense that it was trying to look more broadly, not just from an enforcement and deterrence lens, but also about why people [are] coming.

Has it been successful?

That’s a little bit difficult to pinpoint. There are things that one can point to to say that it was successful. Vice President Harris and the Biden-Harris administration have pointed out that they secured more than $5 billion in private-sector investment in the region. They established a task force to try to create more collaboration between Mexico and these Northern Triangle countries to try to address smuggling and human trafficking. Generally speaking, there are lower numbers of migrants coming from that region, but there are many other reasons why that could be, particularly Mexico preventing them from getting to the US-Mexico border [and] some changes in El Salvador around security issues. So it’s hard to say, but it is important to create more regional cooperation. You can’t really just stop it border by border.

She tries to take a humanistic lens to migration, considering her background as a child of migrants, but she’s also a prosecutor.

What was Harris like in the Senate regarding immigration policy?

She is probably most well known for her ability to almost cross-examine Trump administration officials, particularly around the “zero-tolerance” policy that led to the separation of families at the border. More than 3,000 children were separated from their parents. In terms of policy, she was a vocal proponent of the DACA program and criticized the Trump administration when it rescinded the program. She also advocated for pathways for citizenship and was willing to take the administration head-on when she saw that [it] was doing real harm to immigrant communities.

What would your organization like to see from a Harris administration if she wins?

We would like to see a shift away [from] primarily relying on deterrence and enforcement policy at the border. We think immigration needs to be thought about more holistically. Unfortunately, we’ve seen, from the Biden-Harris administration, a rightward shift in its policy proposals. Particularly the Senate bipartisan bill that both Biden and Harris supported trying to cut off access to asylum as a means to deter migrants. And we think that that’s the wrong approach.

From what I’ve read and seen from Vice President Harris, I think she tries to take a balanced approach. She tries to take a humanistic lens to migration, considering her background as a child of migrants, but she’s also a prosecutor. She also sees the importance of enforcing the law and protecting vulnerable communities, so we think that there’s a prime opportunity for her to become much more of a vocal supporter of increasing pathways for individuals, so that they don’t have to make the treacherous journey to the United States border.

It was difficult to see that the bipartisan Senate bill was largely focused on trying to shut off access to asylum at the border. [We need] the proper balance of saying we need to have security at the border, but also that the folks who have been in the United States for a long time deserve a dignified process to becoming citizens.

What changes would you like to see to the asylum system in the United States?

The Senate border bill wasn’t all bad. Our organization thinks that there were some components that made sense. One was to make the asylum process non-adversarial. So, right now, the overwhelming majority of migrants are unable to get an attorney to represent them in immigration court proceedings, but the government is always represented by their government attorney. So if you’re able to have trained asylum officers, where it’s non-adversarial, you give people more of an opportunity to present their stories, and if they qualify to be in the United States, they can stay. 

One of our concerns with heavy-handed deterrence-based policies is that a lot of people are being sent back into harm’s way, when internationally, we have obligations to protect people from being placed back in harm’s way. The unfortunate thing for the Biden-Harris administration is that they have not been able to get the resources they need to address the larger [number] of individuals who had been presenting at the border.

What we’ve seen from her previous work is that she tries to be pragmatic.

And so they have been placed in an impossible situation by Congress, particularly conservatives who decided that they did not want to fund the systems that exist now. The system is broken in a myriad of ways, not just the laws that exist but also the fact that our Congress is unwilling to actually fund the laws that exist. 

When it comes to undocumented people already living in the United States, what do you think the Harris administration should do?

We do believe that the pathway to citizenship for immigrants who have been in the United States for a long time should be something she advocates for. I think it’s difficult to see, without a fundamental change in the makeup of Congress, how she would be able to actually get that passed. A lot of the tools that the Biden administration has been using, a Harris administration can use, [like] temporary protected status as a means to protect more populations in the United States.

Has Harris signaled any potential changes from the Biden administration on immigration policy?

We have heard from her speeches that she is supporting the bipartisan border bill and that she would advocate for it if she is able to win. Generally, she has said that she supports a pathway to citizenship. But we haven’t really received specifics on other policies. I do think that given her involvement with the Biden administration, she would take a similar approach around parole and TPS [Temporary Protected Status].

How do you view Harris’ recent move towards a more aggressive approach to campaigning on immigration? 

I think it is good to see her out there taking a stronger approach to rhetoric and really trying to shape the narrative. Obviously, she has a strong position, given Donald Trump’s involvement in making sure that the bipartisan bill didn’t move through Congress, but she is adopting the language of Republicans around crime and protection.

It fits with her role as a prosecutor—so part of it is politics, trying to meet folks who are concerned about the border and security, given the years of fear-mongering around that issue. I think what we’ve seen from her previous work is [that] she tries to be pragmatic. I’m sure that she’s trying to think about how you have rules in place while still honoring the folks who have been here for long periods of time without authorization.

It is a little bit concerning that the Democratic Party has adopted that language, but I think the hope is that overall, she’ll be taking a much more humanistic approach to immigration. And her opponent, his campaign’s rhetoric around immigration is just horrific—trying to use the military and the National Guard to round up migrants. So Vice President Harris is looking like the reasonable person in the room, even though, if [you] compare her to four years ago, she would probably be very much to the right in that rhetoric.

Kamala Harris has joked about experimenting with marijuana and—unlike another famous Democrat—admitted to a truly shocking act: inhaling. With Joe Biden out of the race, her track record on drug policy as a prosecutor, senator, and vice president is worth revisiting. A Harris administration would be responsible for shaping federal drug policy that would impact the tens of millions of Americans suffering from addiction and the effects of the failed war on drugs. As a prosecutor in San Francisco, she had a slightly higher conviction rate for marijuana-related crimes than her predecessor but later sponsored a bill in the Senate to lift the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from the list of substances under the Controlled Substances Act—also known as descheduling. Vice President Harris played a major role in the Biden administration’s messaging around drug policy, even announcing their intention to reschedule marijuana during a March roundtable featuring rapper Fat Joe. Rescheduling marijuana would place it in a category of illegal drugs that are considered less dangerous, making research more viable, but drug policy advocates have criticized the administration for not moving to deschedule the drug.

My hope is that Kamala Harris works to end the drug war.

One advocate calling for the descheduling of marijuana is Kassandra Frederique of Drug Policy Action, a nonpartisan organization working to end the drug war through campaigns and ballot initiatives. Frederique says Harris is “further along in terms of cannabis reform policy” than Biden and that her evolution on drug policy shows promise. I spoke with her about Harris’ track record and what she hopes to see from a possible future Kamala Harris administration.  

Can we start by talking about your journey towards advocating for drug policy change? What made you want to get involved in this type of activism?

The more I learned about drug policy and its implications [for] everyday life, I recognized how so much of my own life and the lives of my loved ones were shaped by these policies, and I found a real purpose in working to dismantle the tools that have been really harming so many people for so long. 

What do you hope to see from Kamala Harris’ approach to drug policy if she becomes the next president? 

My hope is that Kamala Harris works to end the drug war. I think we’ve seen her evolution on certain issues like cannabis. We’ve seen her engagement through the Biden-Harris administration around the overdose crisis and recognizing that people need more access to medication treatment. She’s called out the entities that are exploiting people’s pain. We are in a moment where over 100,000 Americans are dying yearly from overdoses. My hope is that whoever leads the country in the next four years is actively invested in that and is working to actually get the resources to our communities and to end criminalization. 

When it comes to marijuana policy specifically, what do you hope to see from the Harris administration if she wins? 

What we’re looking for is the descheduling of cannabis. I think we need to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act. When the vice president was a senator, she was a sponsor of the MORE Act, which descheduled cannabis [and] worked on expungement.

My hope is that she would follow the majority of Americans who believe that cannabis should be regulated. Even in the public comment period that just passed, nearly 70 percent of the comments supported descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing cannabis at the federal level. That’s a large mandate, and I think it aligns with Senator Harris’ perspective before she became vice president, and we’d like to see her move in that direction. 

Your organization has criticized the Biden administration for pursuing rescheduling instead of seeking to legalize marijuana federally. What are the issues that rescheduling doesn’t address? 

Rescheduling doesn’t deal with any of the criminal justice issues. People can still be incarcerated. Rescheduling doesn’t address the issues that have made cannabis such a large criminal justice issue, that has gotten people deported or [made] people lose custody of their kids or lose housing. Descheduling would actually trigger policy reforms that will impact the vast majority of people who’ve been harmed by cannabis prohibition. 

How was Harris’ record as a prosecutor, senator, and VP? Where have you seen her evolve on these issues? 

We’ve seen the most evolution from Kamala through her position on cannabis—slower than we would have liked, but her evolution shows promise. There were things that we struggled with her on when she was a prosecutor in California. But I think if you are a drug policy reformer, you’re always struggling with prosecutors. We worked with her on many pieces of legislation when she was a senator, and we’ve appreciated some of her rhetoric as vice president. There are no politicians currently who are 100 percent on ending the war on drugs.

How do you think the Harris administration could differ from the Biden administration in terms of marijuana policy and drug policy overall? 

President Biden has also evolved on cannabis. Has he gone as far as advocates would have liked? No. But he has evolved from where he started. I think Vice President Harris is further along in terms of cannabis reform policy. Our hope is that we can build momentum from what the Biden-Harris administration has done and that a potential Harris administration would be willing to go further. 

What do you think is the significance of having someone from the community that is most affected by the war on drugs in the White House leading the nation’s drug policy agenda? 

Representation is important, [but] I don’t think representation always equals a difference in policy. For advocates, the mission is still the same. We have to push, we have to educate, we have to agitate to get the things that we know our communities need. And while one can assume that Harris has a closer relationship [with] those things, Vice President Harris was also a prosecutor, so we’ve not always been on the same side. As a senator, we’ve been on the same side more. Our hope is that we’d be able to maintain that.

Is there anything else you think is important to add? 

One of the things that Vice President Harris has focused on and really talked about is health equity and maternal health. And there’s an intersection here between the drug war and maternal health, and working to end the drug war is a tool [for] increasing maternal health. Overdose is the fourth leading cause of death for Black women. And I would assume that some of those women are pregnant. So, there’s been a large conversation about the Black maternal health crisis in the US. As we build a health equity agenda, that is a place that would align with where Harris is. 

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.