The reason this question is swimming around in my head is because of two stories related to illegal immigration. Two stories involving the tragic deaths of children that have caused a debate over political exploitation.

The first report involves Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX), who was roundly criticized for accusing Republicans of “exploiting people’s pain for political purposes” during Angel Moms’ testimonies at the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

These mothers showed up to share their stories of losing their children and other loved ones to illegal immigrants. They slammed the Biden-Harris administration’s faulty border policies that led to the current immigration crisis.

One mother, April Aguirre, lashed out at Escobar’s remarks, calling them “insulting” and emphasizing that they were not being used for political purposes but were there to seek justice for their children and to share their stories.

“It’s insulting that you would say that to these families, that you would make an assumption that they’re being used or exploited anyway,” Aguirre said.

The mother took issue with the lawmaker for refusing to take meaningful action to help the families of the victims of Biden’s border policies and highlighted how little Democrats care about those who have lost loved ones to crimes committed by illegal aliens. “Not one Democrat called me to offer their assistance. It was only Republicans,” she continued.

In another instance, a father who lost his son to an illegal immigrant lashed out at Republicans for invoking the child’s name when arguing in favor of stricter border control policies. Springfield, Ohio native Nathan Clark faced tragedy when his 11-year-old son Aiden was killed in a bus crash caused by a Haitian immigrant.

In an op-ed, Clark argued that his son “was not murdered” but that “He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti.” He called on former President Donald Trump and other Republican politicians to stop using his son’s name “for political gain.”

“In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way and be the inspiration,” he wrote.

While standing before the Springfield City Commission, he called Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), “morally bankrupt.”

The message here is that if an American is harmed by an illegal immigrant, citing the incident as an example of why the government should take harsher measures to prevent dangerous people from entering the country constitutes exploitation. Democrats and those who advocate for relaxed immigration policies have made this accusation against Republicans many times in the past.

But does this actually meet the definition of “exploitation?”

Merriam-Webster defines the term “exploit” in the following fashion: “To make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage.”

I’ll use a modified version of this. Exploitation occurs when a political party or movement cynically uses victims of crimes to push a political agenda that would not have prevented or mitigated the incident being discussed without regard for the victims or their families.

Escobar’s claim that Angel Moms were being exploited implies that their stories were simply being used as emotional leverage to advance anti-immigrant policies. However, the moms were sharing their stories to move the government to action that might prevent other families from having to endure the same pain.

It makes sense to conclude that policies making it easier for the authorities to apprehend dangerous people trying to gain entry into the country would actually save lives. Moreover, the families of the victims have been deeply involved in the effort to save other families from having the same experiences. In light of this, Escobar’s accusations are clearly absurd.

Clark’s case is less straightforward. It is unclear whether the Haitian individual was residing in the country illegally. News reports simply refer to him as an “immigrant,” which means tougher border policies might not have prevented this. However, it is also possible that he had entered the country illegally, which means effective policies might have kept him out.

While the father has now come out publicly to demand that Republicans not use his son’s name in their arguments, his opinion on the matter was not known. Moreover, Trump, Vance, and others on the right have not used his name since, so all in all, it is not clear whether this is an actual case of exploitation.

On the other hand, Clark’s case presents a clearer example of what could be considered exploitation. He explicitly asked politicians to stop using his son’s death as a talking point in their immigration debates, accusing them of using his personal tragedy to further their own agenda. “This needs to stop now,” Clark demanded, highlighting the emotional toll that political grandstanding has taken on his grieving family.

The broader question is whether political figures are genuinely trying to address the concerns of these victims or simply using their stories to push personal or political agendas. It reminds me of the inevitable gun control debate that comes up every time there is a mass shooting.

Anti-gunners seize on these incidents to push legislation that would not have stopped the mass shooting in question. It is clear the objective is not to protect people from would-be mass shooters but to make it harder for law-abiding folks to keep and bear arms. The folks pushing these policies know that they have constantly failed to protect people. Yet, their ultimate aim is to disarm people who pose no threat to others.

This is the very definition of exploitation. Whether the topic is immigration or gun control, the difference between authentic advocacy and exploitation lies in whether the proposed solutions would truly address the problem or if the tragedy is simply being used for a different purpose.