The political discourse surrounding immigration in America has often devolved into sensationalized soundbites and anecdotes rather than a substantive examination of policies that affect millions of lives. The recent debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was no exception.   One of the most baffling moments came when Donald Trump suggested that migrants were eating people’s dogs and cats in Springfield Ohio — a completely baseless assertion, but one that has nonetheless dominated media attention, leaving too little oxygen for a much-needed conversation about the complexities of border security and immigration policy.  Immigration, an issue that shapes the economy, the labor market and the very identity of America, deserves more than outlandish claims and vague rhetoric. In the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, moderators should steer toward, and the candidates should engage in, conversations about real solutions rather than the kind of inflammatory language that has dominated headlines.   This debate should offer voters clear insight into the border and immigration policy positions of the Trump and Harris campaigns. To that end, the moderators should ask each candidate some specific questions designed to get them off their talking points and straw-man arguments.    Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) will face a critical test of his alignment with Trump's hardline immigration agenda. The former president has made it clear that, if re-elected, he plans to enact a sweeping deportation program targeting not only recent arrivals but also long-term undocumented residents. This plan likely would include individuals currently protected under the Biden administration’s parole programs, Temporary Protected Status and even those awaiting asylum decisions.  During Trump’s first administration, 1.5 million people were deported; expanding that effort to include millions more would cost tens of billions of dollars, while severely disrupting industries that depend on immigrant labor. The moderators should ask Vance: “How do you envision a second Trump administration implementing such a massive undertaking, and what steps would you take to address the potential economic fallout?”  Then there’s the matter of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama-era program protecting from deportation more than 900,000 young adults brought to the U.S. as children. With courts poised to rule on its legality, the question should be posed: “Should DACA recipients, many of whom have spent their entire lives in the U.S., be allowed to remain under the existing program? If not, do you support Congress passing legislation to legalize their status permanently?”  Moreover, immigration has long been tied to America’s economic vitality. Economists point out that high levels of both legal and illegal immigration have contributed to the U.S. economy, outpacing Western Europe and Asian nations, where aging populations and declining birth rates have stifled growth. Vance must clarify his vision for immigration’s role in America’s economic future. Vance needs to answer the question: “Do you see immigration as necessary to drive growth, or should the U.S. sharply reduce the number of immigrants, even at the cost of economic stagnation?” On the other side of the stage, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) will have his own set of challenges to address. As Harris's running mate, he must defend the administration’s evolving stance on border enforcement and asylum policy.   Early in the Biden-Harris administration, the blanket ability to request asylum legally once in the U.S. contributed to a surge in illegal border crossings to record levels. Though the administration eventually cracked down, the question lingers: “Was it a mistake to wait so long? Governor Walz, do you agree that the administration's policies created this crisis, and what would a Harris-Walz administration do differently in the future?”  While illegal border crossings have recently declined, the numbers do not account for the 500,000 individuals from countries like Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were allowed into the U.S. through a special parole program. The question here must be: “Would a Harris-Walz administration continue or expand this unprecedented interpretation of U.S. immigration law?”  Of course, immigration isn’t just about border crossings or parole programs — it’s also about public safety. Trump has repeatedly spotlighted crimes committed by immigrants, even though statistics show that they are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Yet, the sheer number of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants cannot be ignored. The governor should answer: “What do you think constitutes grounds for deportation? Should it be limited to violent crimes like murder and rape? Or should lesser offenses — such as DUIs — also be cause for removal?”  Both Vance and Walz have the opportunity to move past the divisive, surface-level rhetoric that so often defines this debate. But to do so, they must be willing to engage with the nuances and complexities of immigration policy. The American public deserves more than platitudes and scare tactics; they deserve leaders who can offer thoughtful, realistic plans for managing the future of immigration in this country.  C. Stewart Verdery Jr. served as assistant secretary for Homeland Security in the George W. Bush administration and as general counsel to the Senate Republican Whip. He is the founder of Monument Advocacy and a member of the Council on National Security and Immigration.