"Smash the Gangs": Lessons Harris Could Take From Keir Starmer
A subtle policy paper played a crucial role in aiding Britain’s Labour Party to address its weaknesses regarding immigration. This approach could similarly benefit the Democrats.
TroibNews 
One of the pressing political challenges for Vice President Kamala Harris as she runs for president is how to address Republican critiques of her record on border security.
A substantial part of the solution may be found in a 31-page report available online, overlooked by many in the U.S. due to its British URL and academic title.
The report, titled “Migration in the Age of Insecurity,” was published earlier this year by Labour Together, a think tank associated with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Its recommendations played a pivotal role in shaping Labour’s message during the recent U.K. election, which included a direct attack on the Conservatives’ immigration policies, a comprehensive vision for immigration reform, and a strong commitment to dismantling criminal networks involved in human trafficking.
Starmer, who has a background in law as a prosecutor, vigorously promoted the message of “Smash the gangs” as one of his campaign's central pledges.
This proactive communication strategy marked a significant shift for Labour, while American Democrats have not embraced a similarly assertive approach. In fact, they seem to lack a cohesive message on immigration altogether.
The Labour Together report pointed out a common misstep for center-left parties: an inclination to steer the conversation towards other issues instead of confronting immigration head-on, which the authors identified as a serious oversight.
“The consequences of disengaging have been great,” they cautioned. “To the public, it looks like evasion. In the void, more extreme voices have dominated.”
This critique is equally applicable to the Biden administration.
Much of Harris’ vulnerability regarding immigration stems from the Biden administration’s reluctance to fully engage with the topic. For much of his presidency, Biden downplayed Republican criticisms as mere nativist rhetoric while quietly implementing enforcement measures to avoid alienating progressives. There was no dedicated effort to counter anti-immigrant sentiments or reassure voters about border safety, leading to predictable outcomes.
Time and again, Biden postponed a reckoning on immigration, ultimately announcing stringent new border control measures just weeks before his campaign faced turmoil. Similarly, Harris resisted taking responsibility for immigration; when Biden tasked her with overseeing issues in the troubled Northern Triangle countries of Central America, she bristled at the suggestion that she should have a direct role in addressing border issues.
As a result, Democrats have been losing ground in the immigration debate, largely because their leaders have failed to approach it with creativity and determination. A recent Marquette Law School poll indicated that while Harris slightly outperformed former President Donald Trump overall, she lagged behind him by 18 percentage points on immigration.
“They’re so far behind on it and it could cost them the whole thing,” remarked Will Somerville, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and co-author of the Labour Together document.
Labour Party strategists are said to have closely monitored Biden’s struggles with immigration, viewing them as lessons in the dangers of mishandling the issue. Crafting a confident immigration message was part of their strategy to avoid a similar fate.
As Labour prepared for the election, they consulted with Frank Sharry, an established American immigration policy advocate, who is now advising the Harris campaign. However, he declined to comment when approached.
It is unclear if Sharry has introduced his new colleagues to the Labour Together report, but “Migration in the Age of Insecurity” could provide valuable insights for Harris’ campaign.
In the report, Somerville and co-authors Christabel Cooper and Sarah Mulley offered a three-part policy recommendation focused on discrediting the British right’s position while fostering support for center-left immigration policies. They highlighted three concerns among British voters: perceptions of chaos within the immigration system, fears that migrants undermine economic opportunities, and anxieties regarding migrant integration into society.
The report argued that a responsible center-left policy had to address these issues, proposing actions such as resolving a significant backlog of asylum claims, combatting the exploitation of migrant workers, and improving public services that many fear cannot adequately support growing immigrant communities.
Moreover, the paper suggested initiatives to boost public confidence in the immigration system, such as creating a “world-leading scheme for local and community sponsorship of refugees and other vulnerable groups.” This would not only help newcomers feel welcomed but also reduce the perception of them as outsiders.
Cooper emphasized that research indicated a willingness among voters to accept an inclusive immigration policy. Most respondents recognized immigration's economic benefits and were receptive to the idea of foreign-born individuals becoming British citizens, with the report citing American-style naturalization ceremonies as a cherished tradition likely to resonate positively with British voters.
Cooper stressed that for this openness to flourish, Labour needed to convey a serious commitment to restoring order to the immigration system.
“The center-left needs to project a message of something like control and compassion,” Cooper stated. “The feeling that migration is out of control is a really strong one, and just kind of dismissing it is not a good thing to do.”
In the U.K., the message of “smash the gangs” was straightforward to communicate. “It has no tradeoff,” Cooper noted. “If you smash the gangs, everybody is happy.”
By the time British voters went to the polls on July 4, Labour had effectively neutralized the immigration debate, according to polling data. While they did not win based solely on their immigration policies, and ongoing civil unrest in Britain poses challenges to Starmer's law-and-order credibility, Labour did not alienate swing voters who might have perceived their candidates as disinterested in border enforcement.
This is precisely the challenge facing Harris as she campaigns for the presidency.
Cooper and Somerville warned that immigration policy in the U.S. is more complex than in Britain, primarily due to the overwhelming number of migrants entering from Mexico. American voters are less concerned about issues like visa overstays or small boat crossings and more alarmed by large-scale migration across an extensive border, a scenario lacking a British equivalent.
Nonetheless, some elements of Harris’ campaign strategy have begun to echo Starmer’s messaging, whether through coincidence or methodical emulation.
During the first joint appearance with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, he highlighted among Harris’ achievements that she “took down the transnational gangs” while serving as attorney general of California. A recent campaign ad referred to her as “a border-state prosecutor” who tackled organized crime.
Although Harris has been a prominent national figure for nearly a decade, addressing human smuggling as a state attorney general has not featured prominently in her campaign rhetoric. Voters hearing this narrative might reasonably question her longstanding engagement with the issue since her tenure in Sacramento.
Nevertheless, if Harris aims to surpass Trump, Somerville suggested that Labour’s approach could serve as a model—reframing the Democratic agenda in a disciplined manner and contrasting it with Republican hostility towards migrants.
“I don’t see why Kamala Harris couldn’t do something similar,” he remarked. “Say: ‘My main goal is to smash the gangs, not to punish the migrants.’”
The ultimate goal, he noted, isn't to decisively win the border control debate, but to render the topic less detrimental.
“If you’re on the center left,” Somerville explained, “and you get even to parity, you’re winning—big time.”
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
A substantial part of the solution may be found in a 31-page report available online, overlooked by many in the U.S. due to its British URL and academic title.
The report, titled “Migration in the Age of Insecurity,” was published earlier this year by Labour Together, a think tank associated with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Its recommendations played a pivotal role in shaping Labour’s message during the recent U.K. election, which included a direct attack on the Conservatives’ immigration policies, a comprehensive vision for immigration reform, and a strong commitment to dismantling criminal networks involved in human trafficking.
Starmer, who has a background in law as a prosecutor, vigorously promoted the message of “Smash the gangs” as one of his campaign's central pledges.
This proactive communication strategy marked a significant shift for Labour, while American Democrats have not embraced a similarly assertive approach. In fact, they seem to lack a cohesive message on immigration altogether.
The Labour Together report pointed out a common misstep for center-left parties: an inclination to steer the conversation towards other issues instead of confronting immigration head-on, which the authors identified as a serious oversight.
“The consequences of disengaging have been great,” they cautioned. “To the public, it looks like evasion. In the void, more extreme voices have dominated.”
This critique is equally applicable to the Biden administration.
Much of Harris’ vulnerability regarding immigration stems from the Biden administration’s reluctance to fully engage with the topic. For much of his presidency, Biden downplayed Republican criticisms as mere nativist rhetoric while quietly implementing enforcement measures to avoid alienating progressives. There was no dedicated effort to counter anti-immigrant sentiments or reassure voters about border safety, leading to predictable outcomes.
Time and again, Biden postponed a reckoning on immigration, ultimately announcing stringent new border control measures just weeks before his campaign faced turmoil. Similarly, Harris resisted taking responsibility for immigration; when Biden tasked her with overseeing issues in the troubled Northern Triangle countries of Central America, she bristled at the suggestion that she should have a direct role in addressing border issues.
As a result, Democrats have been losing ground in the immigration debate, largely because their leaders have failed to approach it with creativity and determination. A recent Marquette Law School poll indicated that while Harris slightly outperformed former President Donald Trump overall, she lagged behind him by 18 percentage points on immigration.
“They’re so far behind on it and it could cost them the whole thing,” remarked Will Somerville, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and co-author of the Labour Together document.
Labour Party strategists are said to have closely monitored Biden’s struggles with immigration, viewing them as lessons in the dangers of mishandling the issue. Crafting a confident immigration message was part of their strategy to avoid a similar fate.
As Labour prepared for the election, they consulted with Frank Sharry, an established American immigration policy advocate, who is now advising the Harris campaign. However, he declined to comment when approached.
It is unclear if Sharry has introduced his new colleagues to the Labour Together report, but “Migration in the Age of Insecurity” could provide valuable insights for Harris’ campaign.
In the report, Somerville and co-authors Christabel Cooper and Sarah Mulley offered a three-part policy recommendation focused on discrediting the British right’s position while fostering support for center-left immigration policies. They highlighted three concerns among British voters: perceptions of chaos within the immigration system, fears that migrants undermine economic opportunities, and anxieties regarding migrant integration into society.
The report argued that a responsible center-left policy had to address these issues, proposing actions such as resolving a significant backlog of asylum claims, combatting the exploitation of migrant workers, and improving public services that many fear cannot adequately support growing immigrant communities.
Moreover, the paper suggested initiatives to boost public confidence in the immigration system, such as creating a “world-leading scheme for local and community sponsorship of refugees and other vulnerable groups.” This would not only help newcomers feel welcomed but also reduce the perception of them as outsiders.
Cooper emphasized that research indicated a willingness among voters to accept an inclusive immigration policy. Most respondents recognized immigration's economic benefits and were receptive to the idea of foreign-born individuals becoming British citizens, with the report citing American-style naturalization ceremonies as a cherished tradition likely to resonate positively with British voters.
Cooper stressed that for this openness to flourish, Labour needed to convey a serious commitment to restoring order to the immigration system.
“The center-left needs to project a message of something like control and compassion,” Cooper stated. “The feeling that migration is out of control is a really strong one, and just kind of dismissing it is not a good thing to do.”
In the U.K., the message of “smash the gangs” was straightforward to communicate. “It has no tradeoff,” Cooper noted. “If you smash the gangs, everybody is happy.”
By the time British voters went to the polls on July 4, Labour had effectively neutralized the immigration debate, according to polling data. While they did not win based solely on their immigration policies, and ongoing civil unrest in Britain poses challenges to Starmer's law-and-order credibility, Labour did not alienate swing voters who might have perceived their candidates as disinterested in border enforcement.
This is precisely the challenge facing Harris as she campaigns for the presidency.
Cooper and Somerville warned that immigration policy in the U.S. is more complex than in Britain, primarily due to the overwhelming number of migrants entering from Mexico. American voters are less concerned about issues like visa overstays or small boat crossings and more alarmed by large-scale migration across an extensive border, a scenario lacking a British equivalent.
Nonetheless, some elements of Harris’ campaign strategy have begun to echo Starmer’s messaging, whether through coincidence or methodical emulation.
During the first joint appearance with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, he highlighted among Harris’ achievements that she “took down the transnational gangs” while serving as attorney general of California. A recent campaign ad referred to her as “a border-state prosecutor” who tackled organized crime.
Although Harris has been a prominent national figure for nearly a decade, addressing human smuggling as a state attorney general has not featured prominently in her campaign rhetoric. Voters hearing this narrative might reasonably question her longstanding engagement with the issue since her tenure in Sacramento.
Nevertheless, if Harris aims to surpass Trump, Somerville suggested that Labour’s approach could serve as a model—reframing the Democratic agenda in a disciplined manner and contrasting it with Republican hostility towards migrants.
“I don’t see why Kamala Harris couldn’t do something similar,” he remarked. “Say: ‘My main goal is to smash the gangs, not to punish the migrants.’”
The ultimate goal, he noted, isn't to decisively win the border control debate, but to render the topic less detrimental.
“If you’re on the center left,” Somerville explained, “and you get even to parity, you’re winning—big time.”
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
