A Looming Challenge for Democrats on Immigration in 2028

A Looming Challenge for Democrats on Immigration in 2028

The Consequences of Avoiding Accountability

Examining the implications of the Democratic Party’s hesitation to enforce immigration laws.

In the early hours of a frigid January morning, Johana Gutierrez and Salvador Alfaro were abruptly awakened by loud thuds on their front door. Flashlights pierced through their windows, and voices shouted from outside. While their children and relatives remained asleep inside, chaos erupted just minutes later as armed agents barged into their home.

Their children, still in their pajamas, trembled in tears, watching as agents methodically searched every room — from the bedrooms to the kitchen and even the garage. As Gutierrez attempted to reach for her phone, an agent barked for her to stay still, and when she sought to provide identification, another agent’s hand hovered near his weapon, threatening her with arrest.

All of this unfolded without a judicial warrant or any genuine emergency. The agents had gained entry through deception.

When the raid concluded, Gutierrez left with her 10-year-old son, whisked away in unmarked vehicles bound for a detention center.

This incident did not occur during the Trump administration; it took place during Obama’s presidency.

The operation, executed by ICE in 2016, resulted in the apprehension of 121 individuals, primarily mothers and children, who faced final deportation orders. The American Civil Liberties Union characterized the event as “a mockery of due process,” leaving indelible scars within the Democratic Party.

The perception that Obama-era immigration enforcement was somehow gentler or more restrained than previous or subsequent administrations became a political myth despite the truth being far more nuanced.

President Obama himself never suggested that immigration enforcement was devoid of hardship. In a 2011 speech in El Paso, he candidly stated that current laws meant that it was not just hardened criminals who faced removal; often, families and well-meaning individuals bore the consequences as well. “We don’t relish the pain that it causes,” he said, acknowledging the emotional toll.

Despite criticism from various interest groups, Obama remained steadfast in enforcing immigration laws. Tom Homan, who led enforcement operations under Obama, was recognized for his achievements in managing deportations, a campaign that the Obama administration modernized and amplified.

While President Trump did not invent aggressive interior enforcement of immigration laws, he undoubtedly escalated it, adding complexity and cruelty amid an already established framework.

Internally, however, the Democratic Party grappled with the ramifications of Obama’s tenure. The moniker “Deporter-in-Chief” served as a warning label for those vying for the presidency in 2020.

President Biden found himself needing to navigate this treacherous terrain carefully.

My experience during the campaign underscored how hyper-aware and sometimes even paralyzed the Biden team became when addressing the immigration issue. Each time it emerged, Biden and Dr. Jill Biden stressed compassion, restraint, and decency, signaling clearly that Biden would diverge from the Trump approach and not replicate Obama’s policies.

In 1988, when George H.W. Bush spoke of a “kinder and gentler America,” Nancy Reagan famously posed a critical question, “Kinder than who?” Our 2020 campaign seemingly preemptively answered that inquiry.

However, within the Oval Office, the narrative morphed into policy, ultimately leading to a significant political mishap.

Biden’s drastic shift away from both Trump’s and Obama’s strategies produced one of the most notable failures of his administration. By dismantling established deterrent measures, restricting enforcement actions, and conveying a retreat from aggressive immigration policy, the administration inadvertently set the stage for systemic failure and paved the way for Trump’s potential resurgence.

It is important to note that Biden did not single-handedly cause global instability, regional violence, or economic turmoil. However, he did prioritize party unity over maintaining systemic credibility, and when that credibility erodes, regaining it proves exceptionally challenging.

For nearly two decades, the Democratic Party has endured an internal strife over immigration enforcement, often reducing the argument to a dichotomy of compassion versus cruelty. In truth, it reflects whether a governing party can openly acknowledge that enforcing laws is not a moral failing but a necessary component of effective governance.

Both Obama and Biden understood a critical reality: there is no unilateral executive solution to the complex issue of immigration in America. Operating under a law developed in 1986 underscores the necessity of meaningful legislative action. Effective reform demands cooperation and compromise, a challenging endeavor in today’s political climate.

Regrettably, the Democrats have allowed ICE to become a battleground for moral conflicts.

Instead of engaging in dialogues centered on reforming its mission and tactics, the party has reduced the discussion to a litmus test: Are you for abolishing it or willing to fund it?

Each cycle of appropriations has morphed into a ritualistic experience of self-criticism, with funding ICE viewed as an act of moral capitulation and defunding seen as virtuous. This dynamic has led to a party that struggles to articulate whether it genuinely supports the enforcement of its immigration laws.

As a result, every Democratic president finds themselves ensnared in a difficult position.

To enforce the law risks internal backlash from their coalition, while failing to do so can result in governmental collapse and electoral repercussions.

Obama opted for enforcement and suffered reputational damage within his party.

Biden chose a path of appeasement, only to incur substantial political and operational costs.

Reflecting on Policy and its Impacts

Unquestionably, subpar policy leads to adverse political outcomes.

The uncomfortable truth remains that a nation cannot function effectively without credible enforcement mechanisms. Not theatrical responses, not arbitrary measures, but a consistent, legitimate approach to enforcement.

Borders devoid of such integrity lead to fictitious claims of compassion.

The rallying cry to “Abolish ICE,” akin to “Defund the Police,” never constituted a serious proposition for governance; rather, it functioned as a signal of moral identity. However, like many forms of moral signaling, it breeds confusion, backlash, and self-inflicted political damage.

Obama grasped a fundamental truth that continues to challenge the Democratic Party: America is inherently a nation of immigrants while also adhering to the rule of law. These two principles coexist and mutually reinforce one another.

Until Democrats can recognize enforcement as a responsibility rather than a moral transgression, the party will oscillate between virtue signaling and reactive measures. Consequently, future candidates, particularly those in the 2028 election cycle, will face the repercussions of a conversation that remains unresolved and fraught with trepidation.