
Can Democrats find their way on immigration?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Democrats onstage saw themselves as morally courageous. American voters, it turned out, saw a group of politicians hopelessly out of touch.Standing side by side at a primary debate in June 2019, 10 of the party's candidates for president were asked to raise their hand if they wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings. Only one of them held still.Six years later, the party remains haunted by that tableau. It stands both as a vivid demonstration of a leftward policy shift on immigration that many prominent Democratic lawmakers and strategists now say they deeply regret, and as a marker of how sharply the country was moving in the other direction.Last year, 55% of Americans told Gallup that they supported a decrease in immigration, nearly twice as many as in 2020, and the first time since 2005 that a majority had said so. The embrace of a more punitive approach to illegal immigration includes not only white voters but also working-class Latinos, whose support Democrats had long courted with liberal border policies."When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump , that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party ," said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, who saw Trump win every county in his district along the border with Mexico. "This is a Democratic district that's been blue for over a century."How the Democrats reached this point, and their continued struggles on immigration, is a decades-long story of political failures, missteps, misreadings and misplaced bets -- and some shrewd Republican moves."We got led astray by the 2016 and the 2020 elections, and we just never moved back," said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who introduced an immigration and border security plan in May. "We looked feckless, we weren't decisive, we weren't listening to voters, and the voters decided that we weren't in the right when it comes to what was happening with the border."What the party does to change its approach -- and to change how voters see Democrats on immigration -- may be the most consequential and difficult decision it faces as it searches for a path back to power.But while there is party-wide agreement that Democrats have a problem on immigration and border security, there is no consensus on how to fix it.Some are pushing for a course correction they see as overdue. A new proposal from the Center for American Progress, the party's leading policy shop, calls for expanding legal immigration while embracing ideas long championed by conservatives, including making it harder for migrants to qualify for asylum.Neera Tanden, the center's CEO, said the plan acknowledged a reality that Democrats had long resisted: They must embrace new immigration restrictions in order to have the credibility with voters to fight the far more expansive plans of the Trump administration."I'm happy to argue with Stephen Miller or anyone else about why they are wrong," she said. "But the way we're going to be able to do that is to also honestly assess that the border has been too insecure, that it allowed too many people to come through and that we need to fix that."Many on the left vehemently disagree, insisting that more conservative policies will only aid what they see as an insidious and ambitious effort by the Trump administration to demonize and deport Black and brown immigrants who have been in the country for years, remaking the fabric of a nation that once took pride in its diversity."Democrats have to stop talking about the issue of immigration within a Republican frame," said Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass. "This has nothing to do with law and order. This is about power, control, terror, and it is about racism and xenophobia. Donald Trump wants to make America Jim Crow again, and then some."Complicating Democrats' efforts to chart a new path is the fact that the party's debate is unfolding in the midst of what it sees as a national crisis. The Trump administration is pursuing the harshest crackdown on immigrants since World War II. Raids and patrols by masked officers, detentions at courthouses and workplaces, the promises to arrest and deport millions, and the deployment of National Guard troops against protesters have immigrants who lack legal status and even some naturalized citizens running scared and lying low."We, and I include myself in this, created a vacuum on this issue that we allowed the current president to fill," said Cecilia Muñoz, who led the Obama administration's domestic policy council. "And the country is now living with the results. And the results are appalling."Some Democrats believe their party can find its path forward by looking to the past.It was under President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, that Congress broadly expanded the grounds for deportation and that border enforcement officers saw their ranks increase sharply. The next Democrat to win the White House , Barack Obama, promised to pass comprehensive immigration legislation, including a pathway to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants.Seeking Republican support, Obama also pursued aggressive enforcement, deporting more immigrants in his first term than any president had since the 1950s. But his attempts to balance the two priorities ultimately failed: His plan to modernize the immigration system stalled in Congress, while his executive actions to aid students, workers and families who lacked legal residency status were challenged in the courts. Disillusioned advocates denounced him as the "deporter in chief."Then came Trump, who rode down the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his presidential campaign with promises to build a "great wall" along what he described as an out-of-control southern border and to expel migrants he condemned as criminals, drug traffickers and rapists.As Trump competed for his party's nomination, Hillary Clinton was under pressure in the Democratic primaries from Sen. Bernie Sanders on the left. Immigration activists persuaded her to break with Obama's approach -- not to mention her husband's -- and pledge not to deport illegal immigrants beyond violent criminals and terrorists. But that promise fueled Trump's candidacy more than it helped hers. He hammered away at her, saying she wanted to "abolish" the country's borders.After Trump won, Democrats moved even further to the left in opposition to what they saw as the cruelty of his policies.Elected Democratic officials echoed activists' calls to "abolish ICE," ban deportations, decriminalize border crossings and end detention. Their efforts focused mainly on curtailing enforcement and standing up to Trump. They said little about the economic and social benefits of expanding legal immigration.Trump's restrictive policies, particularly the separation of children from their families, inspired a broader backlash: By the time he left the White House, more Americans favored increasing immigration than opposed it for the first time in six decades of Gallup polling.But soon after President Joe Biden entered office, illegal crossings at the southern border began to increase, as pandemic lockdowns were lifted and would-be migrants in Central America responded to Washington's changed tone.Some aides urged Biden to avoid the subject and stay focused on the pandemic, the economy, Afghanistan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, issues more politically favorable to him."The through line in every decision they made around immigration was 'What can we do to stop having to talk about this?'" said Carlos Odio, a founder of Equis, a Democratic-aligned polling firm specializing in Latino voters. "The problem is that doesn't work when you're in charge and people expect you to deal with everything."Republican governors made the subject impossible to avoid.The first buses of migrants chartered by the Texas Division of Emergency Management pulled into Washington from Del Rio, Texas, in April 2022. The White House dismissed the effort, organized by Gov. Greg Abbott, as a "political stunt." But the buses kept rolling.Over the next two years, Texas sent nearly 120,000 migrants to cities such as New York, Chicago and Washington. Doug Ducey, then the governor of Arizona, sent buses to Denver, and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida flew migrants to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.As Democratic governors and mayors struggled to house and feed the arrivals, Republicans blamed Biden for the crisis engulfing liberal cities.Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, said she first realized Democrats were in trouble in December 2022. So many migrants were crossing into El Paso that they were sleeping on pizza boxes as temperatures fell below freezing. A city known as a haven for immigrants since the 1800s was overwhelmed. Residents were losing patience, she recalled.Still, when she worked on bipartisan legislation to expedite asylum cases at the border, Escobar said, fellow Democrats criticized the proposal as too restrictive."Living through what El Paso lived through, feeling how unsustainable all of this was, and frankly how challenging this was, I knew this would cause a massive shift in the perspective of Americans about immigration," she said. "There was a failure on the part of the Democratic Party altogether during the last administration in adequately recognizing what was happening."Democrats far from the border saw public opinion moving toward Republicans, too.Lori Lightfoot, a former mayor of Chicago, recalled a homeless Black woman complaining that she could not get help finding an apartment because "they're giving everything to the migrants." The city's established Mexican American communities, Lightfoot said, were not thrilled to welcome busloads of Venezuelans."What we started to hear, which was also a little bit of a surprise to me, was, 'Hey, what about us? We've been here forever. Why are you paying attention to and giving resources to these newcomers who, by the way, you know' -- in soft voice -- 'are Venezuelans?'" she said.Democratic mayors and governors begged Biden to authorize emergency aid and work permits for the migrants. Some took their criticisms public in frustration with what they saw as White House inaction.But Biden aides were locked in furious debates over how, and how fast, to dismantle Trump's policies and what should replace them. That infighting crippled the administration's ability to respond quickly.Congressional Democrats tried to step in, striking a compromise on a bipartisan border bill that would have made illegal entry more difficult while allowing admitted migrants to receive work permits more quickly. But Trump pressed Republicans to torpedo it, to deny Biden a victory and keep the issue inflamed heading into November.In New York, immigration and border politics overtook a special House election in February 2024. Tom Suozzi, a Long Island Democrat, prevailed after adopting a hard-line approach, calling for a temporary shutdown of the border and for deporting migrants who assault the police.Suozzi attributed his win to a willingness to take tough stands, as the Biden administration waited for legislation that would never happen.I don't think that the voters moved to the right," he said. "I think they voted more for the Republicans because they felt that they were not getting attention paid to their concerns."Biden finally responded to the crisis in June, issuing an executive order preventing migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge -- the most restrictive border policy any modern Democrat has instituted.Unlawful crossings plummeted. But it was too late to change voters' perceptions. Trump maintained his advantage on the issue when Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Biden on the ticket.Trump campaigned in front of signs reading "Deport Illegals Now." He interpreted his victory as a mandate to push through an even more aggressive immigration agenda that would reach beyond the mass deportation of immigrants lacking legal residency status and into a broad swath of American life.High school students are getting arrested at traffic stops. Children are being handcuffed outside courthouses. Restaurant workers are being hauled from kitchens during their shifts. And when protests erupted, the administration deployed the military in Los Angeles and arrested or manhandled many people, including high-profile Democratic officials.But as Democrats publicly oppose the president, they have privately traded recriminations over their failure at immigration politics.Latino civil rights organizations are busy with "listening tours" to understand how Democrats misunderstood voters. Party strategists are conducting surveys and focus groups on immigration and border security. Some immigration advocates are warning that unless Democrats determine how to go on the offensive, they will keep losing elections.In a private briefing for Democratic senators recently, Andrea R. Flores, a border official in the Biden White House who is the migration policy expert at FWD.us, a bipartisan advocacy group, blasted the party's failure to make the case for immigration and its benefits, according to people in the room. She urged Democrats to lay out a clear vision for how to fix the immigration system -- something she said the Biden administration had failed to do.Democrats trail Republicans by as many as 41 percentage points in whom voters trust more on immigration and border security, according to polling released in May by Third Way, a center-left think tank. Still, Trump's sinking approval ratings on immigration give some Democrats hope that voters will listen if the party has something new to say."The vast majority of Americans, including Republican voters, are appalled by Trump deporting a child who's recovering from brain cancer, or appalled by Trump deporting students simply for writing an opinion piece in a student newspaper," said Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas. "Democrats can't be scared about talking about immigration. We have to recognize that Trump's overreach is also not popular with the American people."Casar and Pressley expect to reintroduce proposed curbs on mandatory detention and a ban on privately run, for-profit detention centers.More moderate Democrats say easing up on the border and fighting over incarceration won't win back working-class Democrats.Gallego insists that what Americans want is simple: a secure border, deportation of dangerous criminals and a humane path to legal status for families already in the country. If Democrats fail to provide that, he argues, they will continue to pay a price."We have to be able to present an idea of what border security looks like that is not Donald Trump," he said. "And when we actually say what Donald Trump is doing wrong, we need to be able to point to what we would be doing right."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Arun Maira: Dedication to the state's purpose is the key lesson we must learn from China
India is at a crossroads. Both the political Left and Right agree that the economy needs substantial reform, but disagree on the direction. The progressive Left wants more socialism with more liberal democracy; the conservative Right wants more free-market capitalism and seems willing to tolerate curbs on liberty. The Middle seems muddled. The 20th century was a test of competing economic ideologies—socialism versus capitalism; and competing forms of governance—liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, victory was declared for the Washington Consensus of free market capitalism and liberal democracy. India's reformers adopted the Washington formula in 1991. By and large, they gave up on socialism, abandoned industrial policies aimed at growing domestic industries and opened the Indian market for foreign companies without technology-transfer requirements. China did not yield. It stayed its socialist course with single-party governance and continued to build domestic industries. Also Read: Ajit Ranade: The success of 'Made in China 2025' alarmed the West The growth of China's economy is a miracle, economists say. In the 1980s, China and India's economies were comparable in size and per capita income. Now, China's per capita income and GDP are about five times India's. China's high-tech manufacturing sector has grown 48 times larger. The US, meanwhile, has grown alarmed with China's remarkable economic growth and industrial strength despite Beijing not following Washington's economic formula. That consensus has ended even in Washington, where ideological cracks have appeared with increasing inequality and unrest among workers in the US. The US is pressing India to come closer to it. India is wary. China shares a border with India that has seen the two armies skirmish. India must become self-reliant and stronger much faster than it has so far. Reforms must result in faster income growth among the Indian masses and stronger domestic industries. India's leaders should study China for lessons before pushing harder with economic reforms based on the West's failing model. Also Read: China began de-risking its economy well before Trump's trade fury US capitalism and Chinese socialism: Three recent books offer insights into how socialism and capitalism have been combined to achieve China's inclusive and fast growth. China's leaders are good learners, says German political economist Isabella M. Weber in How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate. Like Mahatma Gandhi, they kept their minds open, allowing ideas to come in from all directions without being blown off their feet. They listened to Western economists but applied only what suited China. Weber says, 'The famous Harvard development economist Dani Rodrik represents the economics profession more broadly when he answers his own question of whether 'anyone (can) name the (Western) economists or the piece of research that played an instrumental role in China's reforms" by claiming that 'economic research, at least as conventionally understood" did not play 'a significant role." Chinese economist Keyu Jin, a professor at the London School of Economics who grew up in China and experienced the Chinese system from within, explains how the Chinese socio-economic-political system works in The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism. She explains why Western economic models, which strip out cultural and social forces from economics, cannot comprehend how China works—or even how Western economies work. She makes visible the 'invisible hand' that free-market economists cannot explain. She explains why the Chinese government keeps financial markets and the private sector reined in to ensure the market produces welfare for all, especially poorer and least powerful citizens. She says, 'The number of financial crises in China is exactly zero. It is also an oddity (from a Western perspective) that despite the nation's preternatural economic growth, its stock market has been one of the worst performing in the world." Also Read: Chinese history shows how a closed economy could squander a nation's greatness The Chinese government has added citizen satisfaction and environmental sustainability to GDP as a measure of its own performance (and of local governments). Though private firms grew nine-fold in China from 2000 to 2019 (their number now exceeds the US's by far), 'A more striking fact," says Lin, 'is that private owners with state connections owned about a third of the capital registered by these companies, showing how pervasive equity linkages between state and private businesses have become in China's corporate sector." While the government has reduced the number of state-owned enterprises and pushed the remainder to add profits to their social objectives, it also demands that private firms comply with societal needs. Large, private, property and tech firms that strayed from the socialist path have been cut down. Three distinctive features of China's governance: The purpose of the state, throughout China's long history from imperial times to the Communist era, has been the welfare of citizens. The best emperor was seen as one who provides the most welfare to all citizens, not one who wins the most wars. The leadership of the Communist Party has continued this role, says Chinese political scientist Zheng Yongnian in The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor: Culture, Reproduction, and Transformation. Jin explains further (in The New China Playbook) how the ruling party's commitment to this role has shaped Beijing's socio-economic policies, resulting in widespread support for the party even among the young. Also Read: Rahul Jacob: Manufacturing is crying out for a reality check The governance of China is highly decentralized. Local communities are given freedom to craft solutions suited to their needs; the performance of local party officials is measured by the satisfaction of their communities with progress. Chinese leaders and economists are 'systems thinkers.' They see the economy as only a component of a complex social system. For them, the purpose of economic growth is the production of societal well-being, especially for less powerful people. Whenever the economy begins to fail this purpose, reforms are made to bring it back to its socialist moorings. India must not slavishly follow Western models. Nor can India be China. India must find its own way to create a more equitable society. The author is a former member of the erstwhile Planning Commission and the author of 'Reimagining India's Economy: The Road to a More Equitable Society'.


Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress backs PM Modi's BRICS stand, vows firm fight against terrorism
New Delhi: Backing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's firm stance on terrorism at the BRICS Summit, senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Pramod Tiwari on Monday expressed his complete faith that India will fight terrorism with full resolve and determination. His remarks came in response to PM Modi's statement at the global summit, where he called terrorism 'the most serious challenge facing humanity' and emphasised that condemning terrorism must be a matter of principle, not convenience. Speaking to IANS, Pramod Tiwari supported the Prime Minister, stating, 'At the BRICS Summit, voices should have been more vocal against terrorism. The platform should also raise social, economic, and global concerns of its member nations. India has consistently spoken for global peace and justice. "I have full faith that our country will fight terrorism with unwavering determination. I wish those responsible for the recent attack in Pahalgam had been caught — it would have revealed who trained and supported them. Such information is crucial and would have commanded greater respect globally.' Tiwari also took a swipe at US President Donald Trump, who recently lashed out at the BRICS alliance and warned of an 'additional 10 per cent tariff' on countries aligning with what he termed 'anti-American policies.' 'BRICS is for protecting nations who are in it. President Trump had previously issued similar warnings during his visit to India. At that time, Prime Minister Modi should not have laughed or responded lightly. He should have stood firm and reminded Trump that BRICS works on its own principles and is committed to its founding objectives,' said Tiwari. The Congress leader criticised the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. On Sunday, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar stated that extensive consultations had been held with political parties and acknowledged that 'no one was satisfied' with the current status of the electoral rolls. Reacting to the development, Tiwari said, 'We are not satisfied with the Election Commission of India's response. The documents required for voter list revision are unnecessarily complicated and impractical. If the process is designed to make it difficult for traditional voters who are against the BJP, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, and minority voters, to remain on the rolls, then this raises serious questions about the Election Commission's intent. If the ECI wants to remove them.' He added that while some groups have approached the Supreme Court, others are considering forming 'people's courts' to ensure fairness. 'The Congress has always upheld the voter's right to participate in democracy. We will continue to stand by that principle and ensure that all necessary documentation is provided,' he asserted. Tiwari also took aim at the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Bihar, particularly targeting Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) leader Chirag Paswan. During a political rally in Saran district on Sunday, Chirag announced that he would contest the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections and urged his party workers to prepare for all 243 constituencies in alliance with the BJP and JD(U). Mocking the move, Tiwari remarked, 'The NDA in Bihar is a sinking ship. Chirag Paswan, despite being the son of a respected leader like Ram Vilas Paswan, is trying to stay afloat in turbulent political waters. If he's contesting all 243 seats, it means internal cracks have widened and many alliance members are already looking for the exit door ahead of elections.' He continued, 'It's clear that NDA leaders are aware they are going to lose many seats. Their desperation is evident. While they are forming the central government, they are losing their grip on the state. This creates confusion among their own allies.' In the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections, Chirag Paswan's LJP had contested 137 seats but managed to win only one, Matihani. Despite this, Chirag currently holds a Lok Sabha seat and serves as a Cabinet Minister in the BJP-led central government, which includes JD(U) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) as key allies.

The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Tesla shares fall as Musk's 'America Party' riles investors
Tesla shares fell over 3% on Monday, under pressure from investor concerns about the focus of boss Elon Musk after he announced he would form a new U.S. political party, marking a new escalation in his feud with President Donald Trump. Tesla stock fell over 3% in Frankfurt, pointing to another decline once premarket trading gets underway following the three-day weekend for Independence Day. Veteran tech analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush said Musk was Tesla's "biggest asset" and his decision to dive deeper into politics would likely put the company's shares under pressure. "Tesla needs Musk as CEO and its biggest asset and not heading down the political route yet at the same time getting on Trump's bad side," Ives said in a note on Sunday. "It would also not shock us if the Tesla board gets involved at some point given the political nature of this endeavour depending on how far Musk takes it." Trump on Sunday called Musk's plans to form the "America Party" "ridiculous," launching new barbs at the tech billionaire and saying the Musk ally he once named to lead NASA would have presented a conflict of interest given Musk's business interests in space.