Immigration and the Growing Divide in Latino Politics

The vote on the Laken Riley Act exposed a rift among Latino Democrats that will only grow bigger.

Francis Chung/POLITICO and AP Photo

Both Republicans and Democrats have benefitted politically from the broken immigration system. Until you understand this fundamental reality of the past three decades, none of what is happening will make sense. But once you do everything falls into place.

Democrats have not had a coherent border security policy since 1986, and that was by design. Republicans, meanwhile, have not presented a serious immigration reform proposal that they were willing to support since the early days of the George W Bush administration. Immigration reform has become the political battlefield equivalent of trench warfare - a brutal battle for incremental gains that claims the political careers of any politician foolish enough to raise his or her head out of their partisan trench.

Democrats allowed themselves to be misled by progressive voices and immigration advocates who insisted they could leverage Republicans on border security by demanding immigration reform. These advocates constructed the convoluted, impractical Rube Goldberg policy framework they claimed would lead to a “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” solution. Their leverage was based on a manufactured myth - that the growing Latino electorate was motivated by immigration issues. This was a craven falsehood that not only led to the Democrats’ defeat in the 2024 election and the rise of Donald Trump but also contributed to the suffering of millions of immigrants now living in terror.

Republicans, for their part, have always wanted a “border crisis” as a political asset - the bigger the better. The threat of brown men streaming across the border to invade the country, violate laws, and threaten our women remains the most effective (and immorally cynical) political weapon I’ve ever seen deployed. I’ve watched Republicans wield it successfully since the early 1990’s. For Donald Trump, maintaining the crisis and killing any border deal was a calculated political move, and it worked.

As I’ve written extensively, Democrats have used border dysfunction to try to mobilize Latino voters by demonizing Republicans as existential threats. They hoped this tactic would be enough to drive Latinos to the polls while distracting from Democrats’ obvious policy failings on the economy, housing, education, and upward mobility. Today, the foolishness of this strategy is clear. But for years, as one of the few voices pointing out the data-driven reality, I was attacked and ignored. That’s important because rather than seeking to solve the underlying problems, Democrats chose to deny and refute the math and science before them, bringing us to this moment. Now, they find themselves deeply divided on immigration because the multi-decade strategy has proven hollow.

The progressive wing of the party is doubling down on this failed approach for two reasons. First, it is frightening to admit that you were not just wrong, but so dismally wrong that your failures brought about the rise of Donald Trump and exacerbated the suffering of the very people you claimed to champion. Second, no one in Washington DC is going to give up their titles and contracts, no matter how clear it is that they’ve been wrong. They would rather double, triple, and quadruple down on the wrong direction until it isolates and discredits them completely. Whether Democrats are self-aware to address this remains uncertain.

This came into clear focus during the debate and vote on the Laken Riley Act, the bill that gave Donald Trump his first legislative victory. There is no question this is a tough bill likely to produce unanticipated policy outcomes that will be harmful to people particularly the sections that allow law enforcement to arrest those “suspected” of being here illegally. This is ripe for abuse, especially in the Trump era.

But make no mistake, Democrats face no good options – and it is a situation entirely of their own making. You cannot ignore immigration policies for twenty years and then expect positive options when you lose. What about the Lankford bill you ask? First, the Lankford bill is one that every Democrat in the country would have derided as immoral and draconian a year ago. No, this was not their idea, this was the result of Democrats begging Republicans for a solution to get them out of the jam they had created. Republicans were not about to throw them a life preserver, in fact, they threw Democrats an anchor.

Again, we are here because Democrats allowed themselves to be misled.

Below is a tweet from one of the best reporters covering the immigration scrum in Washington DC, Eric Michael Garcia (follow him on Bluesky if you’re not already). These are the Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the bill 64-35.

There are two names that are most noticeable: Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada and Ruben Gallego from Arizona. Together, they represent half of the Mexican-American Democrats in the Senate. That matters because the other two Mexican-American Senators, Alex Padilla from California, and Ben Ray Lujan from New Mexico, voted NO.

On the very first bill of the new Senate session, a bill of paramount importance to both Donald Trump and immigration advocates, the four Mexican-American Democrats were evenly divided. This is an extraordinary moment in Latino politics, and it cannot be dismissed solely as political calculation by Senators seeking to thread the needle of common ground in purple states.

This split is far more consequential than that. These votes are reflective of Latino voter sentiment. Immigration reform and border security issues are not clear-cut, and they never were, not even among Latinos. It is accurate to describe Latino voters as having a more moderate position on these issues than white voters and that is precisely how this vote came out - evenly divided.

Moreover, Gallego and Cortez Masto did something even bolder. They have taken a bold step on a new path for both their party and its future by reclaiming the Latino voters it’s been losing for ten years. Certainly, Padilla and Lujan have a legitimate claim in representing Latino voices, but so do Gallego and Cortez Masto. In fact, the data would suggest more so. Saying no to border security solutions got Democrats into this problem in the first place. The choice before them was stark - take action on a bad bill and get something done, or do nothing and continue to perpetuate a bad situation that has already proven disastrous for your party. This was an easy and obvious decision.

Predictably, Cortez Mastro and Gallego have received blowback for their votes. But political leadership means taking some slings and arrows, and Democrats owe these members a debt of gratitude. Not because they supported a bill no one likes - but because they have demonstrated the courage to do something when doing nothing is no longer acceptable.

That there can be an even split among Mexican-American Democrats on an issue of such foundational importance is a watershed moment. That it happened with representatives from states like California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico underscores its significance.

Ruben Gallego and Catherine Cortez Masto are on the right side of the politics surrounding this bill. There are no ideal policy solutions at the moment because Democratic intransigence has led the party to a dead end. More importantly, they are charting a new path out of the wilderness for a party that has allowed itself to be manipulated by consultants and pollsters with little constituency outside the Beltway.

Latino politics has forever changed, and Cortez Mastro and Gallego are boldly leading the way.