Ro Khanna Discusses the Future of the Democratic Party and Immigration Issues

Ro Khanna Discusses the Future of the Democratic Party and Immigration Issues

Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California, is a man with a sense of urgency. On a bustling Tuesday, he found himself at the center of a vote for the release of the Epstein files. As I walked toward his office in the Cannon building, he invited me to join him on his errand.

Without hesitation, I agreed, eager to discuss more than just the Epstein matter.

My main interest lay in the evolving landscape of the Democratic Party. I initiated our conversation by questioning whether he views the party as shifting its focus from providing a safety net to promoting what some might call a welfare state.

Khanna was quick to assert his vision is far from that narrative. He expressed admiration for Franklin D. Roosevelt, emphasizing the need for wealth generation across the country. He noted the importance of production and manufacturing in America’s economy.

“Roosevelt didn’t just provide handouts,” Khanna pointed out. “He aided the industrialization of America.”

Turning to Khanna’s proposal for $10-a-day childcare for all Americans, I questioned whether such policies represent sizable government payouts. He again redirected the conversation to FDR, asserting that his vision reflects the New Deal principles.

“It’s about establishing an economic bill of rights, which includes national healthcare,” he elaborated. “FDR believed in universal childcare. During his administration, we had war nurseries to support working mothers.”

This reference illustrated Khanna’s deep roots in New Deal ideology, a stark contrast to some of the more leftist approaches within his party. While conservatives may reject the New Deal, they might prefer Roosevelt’s legacy over the more radical ideas espoused by certain factions.

As our discussion shifted to immigration, we reached an elevator—his preferred mode of transportation in the building, having told me he usually takes the stairs for efficiency.

This presented a perfect opportunity to address the pressing immigration concerns affecting the nation. “Many people believe Democrats have allowed 20 million illegal immigrants into the country without proper procedures,” I noted. “Now, your party claims that each of them must go through due process.”

To illustrate the gravity of this situation, I emphasized that offering each individual a one-hour hearing would require over 2,000 years of collective time.

Khanna engaged passionately in his response. He shared personal stories about his immigrant parents, highlighting the importance of learning English and understanding American history and values. He expressed belief that Americans should prioritize responsibilities alongside rights.

While he evaded a direct answer, it became clear that Khanna’s pride in American values places him at odds with some members of his party who lean toward more radical socialist ideas.

After a brief intermission as Khanna attended a meeting that I was unable to join due to my attire, I once again posed my immigration question upon his return.

“You’re referring to those already here,” he acknowledged. “If someone has committed a violent crime, there needs to be deportation after due process. However, for many who work in childcare, hospitality, and construction—paying taxes—I believe we need to create a pathway to legalization.”

This statement suggested that many of these individuals would be allowed to stay, a point that could resonate poorly with critics of the party.

As we stepped out of the elevator into the vibrant corridors of the Cannon building, I posed another challenge: “If Democrats previously allowed 20 million to enter, why wouldn’t they do so again if given the chance?”

Khanna acknowledged the validity of the question, recognizing it reflects broader electoral concerns. “That is a solid point,” he responded. “We really don’t want to lose elections.” This admission signals awareness within the party regarding the electoral ramifications of immigration policy.

The first takeaway from our exchange indicates that Khanna believes a significant portion of the 20 million undocumented immigrants could stay under Democratic policy. The second takeaway highlights a potential strategy to endorse some elements of stricter border security.

Our discussion pivoted to Israel, with Khanna reflecting on the shift in his party’s stance over the past decade. “Even a few years ago, we were much more supportive of Israel,” he remarked.

Curious about the reasons behind this shift, I inquired further. Khanna quickly pointed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, admitting that while he initially supported Israel’s military responses post-October 7 attacks, he felt they have since escalated beyond acceptable measures.

Nonetheless, he affirmed his support for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state—a crucial stance that sometimes contrasts with those held by other far-left factions within the Democratic Party.

We briefly discussed the possibility of shifting focus away from Israel if diplomatic efforts by former President Trump prove successful.

In the moments we had left together, I asked Khanna about Senator John Fetterman’s concerns that the Democratic Party is veering too far left.

“I like John,” Khanna acknowledged. “We enjoy drinks together, but as a progressive Democrat, we have our disagreements.” His repeated self-identification as a “progressive Democrat” stood out, suggesting a new significance behind the term amidst an increasingly divided party.

Previously, progressive Democrats encompassed the far-left. However, Khanna’s framing indicates a shift toward a broader definition—one that positions itself to the right of the more radical factions.

With the midterms approaching, it’s evident that these internal dynamics will intensify within the Democratic Party. Ro Khanna appears poised to navigate this landscape, striving to maintain a grip on what it means to be a Democrat in today’s politically charged environment.