top of page

Rediscovering Compassion in Public Policy: Contrasting Visions of Mike Collier and Dan Patrick

Navigating Compassion in Border Policies


By  Brock Cravy



In the intricate tapestry of public policy, the presence or absence of compassion casts a profound shadow, shaping the lives of individuals and communities. Texas, a state known for its unique blend of cultural diversity and ideological fervor, has become a focal point in the discourse on compassionate governance. As we examine the actions of two influential Texan leaders, Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, it becomes apparent that their approaches to border policies have ignited debates over compassion, empathy, and the pursuit of security.

"Compassion is missing in public policy, and we all feel it, and we need to bring compassion back. That’s what you get with Mike Collier, and Dan Patrick is the exact opposite on every one of those (policies)," said Mike Collier, the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Collier's perspective encapsulates a sentiment that resonates across party lines and echoes in communities throughout Texas. The call for a more empathetic and understanding approach to governance is loud and clear, and it's a call that has a profound impact on how we address complex challenges, particularly those at the border.

Governor Greg Abbott's tenure has been marked by a steadfast commitment to border security, a stance that has garnered both support and criticism. The deployment of the Texas National Guard and Texas Department of Public Safety officers to the southern border aimed to curtail unauthorized immigration and drug trafficking. Supporters of these measures argue that they are crucial for maintaining law and order, emphasizing the need for security in a region prone to complex issues.

However, this approach has sparked concerns about compassion, particularly regarding the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. Critics of Abbott's policies worry that the emphasis on security could overshadow the nuanced realities of migration. They fear that such stringent measures might inadvertently perpetuate human rights abuses, create an environment of hostility, and hinder efforts to provide refuge to those fleeing violence and persecution.

The proposal for a border wall further intensified the debate. While the intent may have been to enhance security, opponents argue that such a structure could symbolize exclusion and cruelty, creating barriers for vulnerable individuals seeking a better life. The compassionate aspect of border policy seemed at risk of being overshadowed by a perceived focus on deterrence and isolation.

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, while sharing a conservative stance with Abbott, has also faced scrutiny for his perceived lack of compassion in border policies. His resolute support for Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which aimed to address sanctuary cities, ignited a firestorm of debate. The legislation granted law enforcement the authority to question immigration status, a move supporters argued would enhance public safety and immigration enforcement.

Yet, critics worried that such policies could lead to racial profiling, erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, and undermine compassion in governance. The heated SB4 discussions revealed a deeper tension between law enforcement objectives and the need for empathy and understanding in addressing complex immigration issues.

In the midst of this discourse, the example of Mike Collier emerges as a refreshing contrast. Collier's perspective embodies the notion that compassion is not a sign of weakness, but rather a driving force for effective and equitable governance. His commitment to compassionate policies, from healthcare to education, resonates with a longing for empathy at the heart of public decision-making.

As we reflect on the actions and policies of Abbott and Patrick, it is evident that the question of compassion in border governance remains deeply intertwined with broader considerations of security, justice, and inclusivity. The decisions made in the corridors of power hold the potential to shape the experiences of countless individuals, both within and beyond borders.

In a state known for its resilience and dynamism, the conversations around border policies underscore the importance of striking a delicate balance. While proponents of tough-on-immigration measures argue for their necessity, opponents emphasize the need for policies that reflect the complexity of human experiences and uphold the principles of compassion and empathy.

The path forward demands thoughtful introspection and dialogue, bridging the divide between security imperatives and humanitarian values. Ultimately, the evolution of compassionate border policies will serve as a testament to Texas' capacity to navigate the intricacies of governance, reaffirming its commitment to justice, fairness, and the well-being of all who call the Lone Star State home.

bottom of page