The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by law enforcement officers in Minneapolis are examples of the Trump administration’s penchant for violent confrontation and spectacle. Impartial investigations must take place and wrongdoing must be punished. While inexperience, incompetence, and trigger-happiness played significant roles in these tragedies, the root cause of the problem lies elsewhere: the left’s refusal to accept that it lost the debate on immigration.
It wasn’t long ago that leading Democrats spoke about immigration in ways that today would get them called “fascists” by their progressive base. In 2010, President Barack Obama said that legalizing the status of every illegal immigrant would be unwise and unfair, leading to a “surge in more illegal immigration,” and ignoring “the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.” Three years later, addressing immigrant rights activists outraged by his deportations, Obama explained that he was “the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. …We have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think in many cases the results may be tragic. …There are going to be some stories that break our hearts.”
Breaking progressive hearts was something Democrats were once capable of doing. In 2014, during a surge of unaccompanied minors across the southern border, Obama told ABC News that “If they do make it, they’ll get sent back.” Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton agreed, telling CNN, “We don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.” The following year, Obama bestowed the nation’s highest civil service honor on ICE official Tom Homan, now a progressive bête noir.
It was around this time that the progressive left, with its all-but-declared policy preference of open borders, began exerting more influence over the Democratic Party. As part of their war on the English language (“gender affirming care,” “minoritized individuals,” “intersectionality,” etc.) the term “illegal immigrant” was replaced with the politically correct “undocumented immigrant,” eliminating the stigma of criminality. Asked by the podcaster Ezra Klein about “open borders,” Sen. Bernie Sanders replied that it was “a Koch brothers proposal,” something “right-wing people in this country would love. … Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour. … I think we have to raise wages in this country.” For voicing this standard left-wing critique of open borders Sanders was denounced by activists as “backward-looking.”
Bipartisan attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, a framework including increased border security and pathways to citizenship, failed in 2007 and 2013. As Obama deported more people than any other president in history (earning him the nickname “deporter-in-chief”) there were no forcible attempts to prevent deportations on the level we’re seeing now. Only after Trump announced his campaign for president in 2015 and began deriding Mexican “rapists” and “murderers” did citizenship for anyone who wanted it become a sacred cause for the left, the equivalent of a constitutional right.
By the time of the 2020 presidential debates, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet was the only one among 10 Democratic candidates not to raise his hand in favor of decriminalizing border crossings. After winning the White House, Joe Biden presided over a record number of illegal crossings, his administration’s comparatively lax approach a deliberate reaction in the words of a former Biden official to the “excesses of the Trump administration.”
Living in a democracy means accepting outcomes with which you disagree. Scenes of illegal immigrants being deported might be “tragic” and “break our hearts.” But while peacefully protesting such actions is acceptable, interfering with them is not. Pro-life advocates, for example, loathe legal abortion because they sincerely believe it to be murder. While they are free to protest outside abortion clinics, they are not permitted to deny women access to them.
Many Democratic politicians fail to observe the distinction between opposing a law and defying it. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, whose master’s thesis concerned Holocaust education, has used Nazi analogies to describe the situation in his state, referring to ICE as a “modern-day Gestapo” and comparing illegal immigrants to Anne Frank. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told ICE to “get the f–k out of” his city. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg euphemistically describes places where ICE officers can expect physical resistance as “politically non-compliant areas.” More than 1,000 mostly Democrat-run jurisdictions designate themselves “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants.
An uneasy parallel can be drawn between Democratic politicians defying federal authority today and the southern politicians who waged “massive resistance” to desegregation 70 years ago. When Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used his state’s National Guard to prevent nine black students from attending Little Rock Central High School in 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Guard to escort the students into the building. Six years later, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally pledged to “stand in the schoolhouse door” at the University of Alabama—and President John F. Kennedy copied Eisenhower and sent in the Guard. The hapless Walz unintentionally strengthened the analogy of Democrats-as-neo-Confederates when he mused to The Atlantic whether the events in his state amounted to “Fort Sumter,” where South Carolina troops fired the first shots of the Civil War at the Union Army.
Progressives won’t like the comparison of their actions to those of southern racists. But the principle on which they’re fighting—that states and municipalities can nullify federal laws they don’t like—is the same. Most Americans hold a more nuanced view. According to a New York Times/Siena Poll, while 61 percent of voters believe ICE tactics have “gone too far,” half the country supports Trump’s deportations. And per a mid-January poll, Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on border security 48 percent to 20 percent.
Trump’s advantage on immigration recalls another demagogue’s popularity with the American people. Explaining the appeal of the red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy in 1952, intellectual Irving Kristol assailed those who felt that “because a vulgar demagogue lashes out at both Communism and liberalism as identical, it is necessary to protect Communism in order to defend liberalism.” The same can be said of progressives who feel that because Trump often conflates illegal and legal immigration it’s necessary to defend both. To paraphrase Kristol on McCarthy and Communism, there is one thing that the American people know about Trump: He, like them, doesn’t like illegal immigration. About the alleged standard-bearers of American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.
