VP Debate: How Vance, Walz differed from running mates on immigration

A bearded man in a suit and red tie, left, looks on as another man, in a suit and blue tie, speaks at a lectern

Oct. 2, 2024 3 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Though mass deportation of immigrants in the country illegally has been a central talking point of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, on the national debate stage both the former president and his Republican running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, have offered few details about how it would work.

Asked to explain during Tuesday’s vice presidential debate how a Trump administration would carry out what he has called “the largest deportation operation in American history,” Vance said he would start with deporting those who have committed some crime beyond illegally crossing the border. He also said he would make it more difficult for those lacking legal status to obtain jobs in the U.S., claiming that “a lot of people will go home if they can’t work for less than minimum wage in our own country.”

But he repeatedly dodged a question about whether he would separate children who are U.S. citizens from their parents, and incorrectly stated that there are “20, 25 million” immigrants in the U.S. without legal status (the widely accepted number is about 11 million).

Much like the presidential debate last month, Tuesday’s face-off between Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, yielded more rhetoric on immigration than new policy prescriptions.

Unlike at the presidential debate, in which the commentary on immigration devolved into sound bites and verbal jabs, Walz and Vance presented their respective campaign’s message with a congenial tone. For Vance, that meant blaming a host of problems — from crime to housing costs — on immigrants who are in the country illegally. For Walz, it meant blaming Trump for the failure of bipartisan border security legislation, while working to appeal to moderate voters.

Immigration is a central issue in this year’s election, and polls have shown a majority of voters want to see immigration levels reduced.

Last month, Vance stoked lies about Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, stealing and eating other residents’ pets. In an interview with CNN, he defended amplifying the rumors, saying he was willing to “create stories” to get his message across.

On Tuesday, Walz brought up Vance’s comments on Haitians, most of whom live and work in the U.S. legally under temporary protected status.

“The consequences in Springfield were the governor had to send state law enforcement to escort kindergartners to school,” Walz said. “When it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings.”

Vance pivoted to talking about broader immigration policy.

“The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’ open border,” he said. “It is a disgrace, Tim, and I actually think I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does.”

During the presidential debate, Trump repeatedly returned to the topic of immigration, including when asked about the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, the economy and why he refused to accept that he had lost the 2020 election. Trump and Vance repeated false claims about Haitians in Springfield, which have been denounced by Ohio leaders including Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

Walz‘s argument for solving immigration centered on his support for the failed bipartisan border bill, which would have added 1,500 border agents and resources to stem the flow of fentanyl and speed up asylum adjudications. Trump pressured House Republicans to abandon support for the bill this year.

“We had the fairest and the toughest bill on immigration that this nation’s seen,” Walz said. “It was crafted by a conservative senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford. I know him. He’s super conservative, but he’s a man of principle. Wants to get it done.”

Harris and Walz pinning their debates on the failure of the bipartisan border security bill leaves out that “in reality, presidents have an amazing amount of existing power on immigration,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., who was assistant secretary for Homeland Security during the  George W. Bush administration.

Verdery, now a member of the Council on National Security and Immigration, had hoped to hear from Walz what he thinks about the vast expansion under the Biden administration of temporary legal status, such as the program that has allowed more than 500,000 Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians to fly to the U.S. if they have a financial sponsor. Trump has vowed to deport many of those immigrants with temporary status.

As for Vance, Verdery said he had hoped the senator would be pressed on his apparent belief that immigration is a net bad — which, he said, is contrary to the research of most economists, the traditional Republican Party and moral values. He questioned, for example, whether Vance understands that mass deportations would unleash chaos on the economy and on American communities.

“You really wish they could get some more nuance on what they want to do,” Verdery said. “Especially since neither Walz nor Vance have had federal executive privilege.”

Brad Jones, a political science professor at UC Davis who studies immigration policy, said the exchange between Vance and Walz on immigration was largely nonsubstantive.

He said Trump and Vance have been good at controlling the narrative around immigration, so Tuesday’s debate offered Walz the last chance in that type of forum to explicitly address his and Harris’ plans — and Walz missed.

“Walz did not address the false narratives of immigration propagated by the Trump campaign and instead wanted to strike a middle ground, but there is not a middle ground on an issue where the other side has zero interest in common ground,” he said. “I think Walz’s desire to attempt to appeal to possible uncommitted voters fell on deaf ears.”

VP debate: Walz whiffs on immigration, Vance dodges question and misinforms

More to Read

More From the Los Angeles Times

Most Read in Politics