What each GOP candidate should be asked about immigration during the debates

On August 23, candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will meet on a debate stage for the first time. Primary debates are crucial in bringing policy disagreements within a political party to the forefront. In recent election cycles, differences in immigration policy have been a major source of contention between candidates. These divides provide ample material for interesting policy questions, which should not be overlooked given that immigration is a top priority for GOP voters in early primary states. 

What’s notable about the 2024 GOP primary is the degree to which the immigration platforms of the leading candidates converge. To date, none of their campaign websites mention support for legal immigration pathways. Challenging birthright citizenship and taking unilateral military action within Mexico to combat cartels and force more migration controls — once hardline positions within the party — now have almost unanimous support among the leading candidates.

While substantive differences in immigration policy between the front-runners have yet to visibly emerge, the candidates do have diverse records and perspectives on immigration. The questions posed during the debate should be representative of each candidate’s distinctive history and outlook on immigration.

With this in mind, here are the questions moderators should ask each GOP candidate during the debates:

For Donald Trump: How would bombing targets in Mexico lead to a more stable and orderly border?

The former president has influenced the Republican party’s immigration platform more than any current GOP candidate. This is evident in how many leading candidates have adopted his stance on military strikes in Mexico.

However, this approach would cut against the more isolationist strain of foreign policy that his voter base supports. Trump should be asked to clarify the circumstances in which he would authorize unilateral military strikes in Mexican territory, the level of resources he is willing to commit to this path of action, and what metrics he would use to determine the success of this hypothetical course of action.

These details are important because our ability to manage irregular migration at the southern border is heavily contingent on cooperation with the Mexican government, and because the inevitable violence and turmoil in northern Mexico as a result of increased military engagement would almost certainly lead to a surge of irregular Mexican migration at a time when it is otherwise beginning to recede (See graphic below).

For Ron DeSantis: Should refugees fleeing communism now be granted protections similar to those who fled to Florida during the Cold War? 

Florida is associated with Cuban migration more than any other state. During the Cold War, refugees fleeing Fidel Castro’s regime received safe harbor and preferential treatment, which allowed them to rebuild their lives in the United States. Cuban Americans are an essential constituency; exit polling indicates that they contributed to DeSantis’s gubernatorial victory in 2022 and Donald Trump’s victory in Florida in 2020.

Given the prominent role refugees from Communist regimes and their descendants play in Florida, Governor DeSantis should explain the circumstances under which he would grant refugees currently fleeing brutal dictatorships in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua increased legal pathways to seek asylum in the United States. At a minimum, the governor should clarify whether he would follow in Trump’s footsteps and end the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program if elected.

For Mike Pence: How do you plan to protect persecuted Christians without a well-functioning refugee resettlement program?

Mike Pence is clearly aligned with the evangelical wing of the party and is relying on strong support from these voters to give him a plausible chance at the nomination. Many of these voters and the churches they belong to are concerned about the growing persecution of Christians worldwide. Yet, Pence’s record and his rhetoric on helping Christian refugees are currently at odds with the Christian cohort.  As governor, he lost a lawsuit over his attempt to block the resettlement of Syrian refugee families in Indiana. He also oversaw a dramatic reduction of the refugee resettlement infrastructure as part of the Trump administration. 

Despite this, Pence has made verbal commitments to helping persecuted Christians abroad. He should elaborate on the extent to which he would accept persecuted Christians as refugees and how he would do so if our resettlement process is again weakened as it was during the Trump presidency.  

For Nikki Haley: How will you use immigration policy to our advantage in great-power competition with China?

Former South Carolina governor & U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley has tried to cast her assertive foreign policy stances as a differentiating factor between herself and other candidates. 

In a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Haley highlighted several ways China is trying to twist the freedoms of the American socioeconomic system to its advantage.

Policymakers concerned about losing ground to China should consider how the U.S. can harness unique aspects of American life to draw a contrast with the repressive Chinese system. Immigration presents a critical opportunity for us in this regard. Utilized correctly, it could help ensure that we continue to have the economic dynamism at home and soft-power advantage abroad that will help ensure that China does not displace us as the world’s leading power. Haley should be asked how she plans to use our immigration system as an advantage in our relations with China and other autocratic regimes. 

For Tim Scott: Do you plan to support the Conrad 30 legislation in the Senate?

Senator Tim Scott is notable for spearheading new initiatives within the Republican Party designed to address poverty. He has been using this record to position himself as a more positive, forward-looking representation of what the party could be. 

This, coupled with how heavily his path to the nomination depends on a strong showing in Iowa, would make his support for the Conrad 30 waiver program a natural fit. This program allows international graduates of American medical schools to skip a mandatory waiting period and begin practicing in the U.S. if they agree to do so in a medically underserved part of the country. South Carolina has benefited from this program, and Iowa Senator Joni Ernst is a prominent co-sponsor of legislation that extends Conrad 30 in the Senate. Scott has yet to endorse the bill and should clarify whether he would join Iowa’s junior senator in doing so.

For Vivek Ramaswamy: How would ending birthright citizenship encourage assimilation?

Vivek Ramaswamy’s signature issue in the primary has been his focus on what he sees as a crisis of American identity. Like many other candidates, Ramaswamy supports ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants. He also proposes additional requirements like civics tests or community service as a prerequisite for voting for all Americans under 24. 

Ramaswamy’s passion for assimilation and civic duty should make him open to seriously considering that his proposals risk weakening the country’s social fabric. For example, Ramaswamy should be asked to explain why marking the children of illegal immigrants as foreigners would not make their paths to assimilation more difficult. The small body of research on changes to birthright citizenship laws indicates that denying citizenship to people born and raised in those countries makes it harder for them to assimilate. Ramaswamy’s proposal would unintentionally create a second-class population and undermine one of the facets of American exceptionalism he values.

For Chris Christie: What role should northern blue states play in border policy?

No other candidate who has qualified for the debates at the time of writing has been more explicitly critical of Donald Trump than former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie’s willingness to criticize his fellow Republicans isn’t limited to Trump – he has also aimed his fire at Ron DeSantis over his demeanor and vision of governance.  

Christie has yet to address DeSantis on his immigration policy broadly and his migrant flights specifically. Defenders of the migrant flight portray it as a necessary measure to highlight the perceived hypocrisy of northern, blue-state politicians who claim to be welcoming toward migrants but are reluctant to share the costs of providing them humanitarian aid. Given how powerful this sentiment is within the voter base, Christie should articulate his vision of the proper role of wealthy northern states in sharing migration-related costs.

For Doug Burgum: How would you make it easier for high-skilled immigrants to work at American businesses and grow the American economy?

North Dakota governor Doug Burgum is pitching voters on his ability to boost economic growth and unify the country based on his successful career as a businessman and his more reconciliatory approach to government. 

Burgum started the Office of Legal Migration this year to make it easier for businesses in North Dakota to hire high-skilled immigrants in his role as governor. On the debate stage, he should be asked to elaborate on how he would apply this nationally and provide a counterweight to the largely negative rhetoric around immigration.

Conclusion

The GOP primary debates will serve as an important platform for the candidates to connect with voters over issues that matter to them. Within immigration policy, it is undeniable that most Republican primary voters are concerned over border security and irregular migration. This should not preclude discussion on the role immigration plays in other issues that matter to them, like rural healthcare or our competition with China. These questions should serve as a starting point for voters and moderators to expand the range of what they ask the candidates regarding immigration.