Most Democrats would have supported the Laken Riley Act if it had included provisions for due process; that was the sticking point. Due Process. Which even people who've committed violent crimes and are in this country illegally are entitled to under our Constitution. Just like any other criminal defendant. I resent the implication that Democrats who refused to vote for a flawed bill that is constitutionally suspect are somehow soft on violent crime. My heart breaks for Laken Riley's family and friends. But that bill has serious, likely unconstitutional, problems. It was probably a politically smart vote for Gallego given the politics of AZ, and he was probably under a stronger spotlight BECAUSE of his Latino heritage.
I strongly suspect Gallego's move to the center on some issues has Democrats on edge because they watched his predecessor get elected as a progressive Democrat only to end her term as a McConnell republican/independent - which, ironically, is the reason Gallego even had an opening to run for her seat; he was seen the more progressive alternative. The same thing is currently happening with John Fetterman, who's moved sharply to the MAGA right, again after running as a progressive and receiving massive support from the left and middle of the party. So, I wouldn't be so quick to assign motives to people criticizing some of Gallego's votes. There are serious and legitimate reasons for that criticism. As you point out, not everything is about immigration just because we're talking about a Latino politician.
Jane - strongly agree there are serious civil rights issues in the Riley Act. I advocated to BOTH my AZ senators to work for amendments. I've supported both, donated. A hard truth (might have been some smart guy named Madrid saying it): you don't get to make serious amendments unless your party wins enough seats first. Gallego & Kelly both voted for the flawed bill.
So here we are. Hard to obtain compromises as minority party. Hard to win Senate back unless we achieve better communication w/voters, esp low-info folks who seem more susceptible to flat-out falsehoods when Republicans lie forcefully and make connections in their communities. I hope Dems will strive to make those connections with truth & by listening to what working class &/or non-college educated folks are experiencing. There IS a way forward AND it's not by doing the same thing as the past 20+ years.
p.s. - my take on Kyrsten Sinema is that she burned more bridges to her constituents than she built. Less to do with her actually policy views (at whatever point in time) or shifts therein. People I know in either party grew to dislike her as her term went along; she wasn't a politician for us common folk back home. I believe Gallego's heritage helped him, but more so that he made connections to voters via hard work - e.g. he's not Indigenous but personally visited all 22 Native Nations in Arizona, including one he reached via miles of hiking. That's commitment beyond publicity stunt.
I get that both AZ senators did what was expedient given the politics of their state. That doesn't change the fact that the Laken Riley bill was constitutionally flawed. I stand on the fact that most Democrats would have voted in favor of it had the due process flaws been corrected.
It was Sinema's betrayal of the voters who worked to get her elected that created the opening for Gallego to run. It's also the reason Democrats are suspicious of a politician who runs as a progressive suddenly moving right on certain issues. People's suspicions are well grounded.
Agree wholeheartedly that the Democrats need a communications overhaul that better aligns with where most voters get their information, which is online. The party doesn't appear to be doing that work, but independent media is filling that vacuum. As far as low-info voters are concerned, sadly, I think pain is end up being the best teacher. Some folks are already waking up to the damage they voted for; others, I suspect, will be joining their ranks.
One thing that gets lost in discussions like these is that 2024 presidential election was close, very close. It's easy to over-read results that were this close. For example, for all the chatter about disconnected Democrats allegedly are from working class and non-college educated voters, here in NC nearly the entire ballot of state offices from governor on down were carried by Democrats.
In my 10 years in AZ I’ve seen us produce some uniquely flawed candidates. Sinema didn’t have to be one but made her choices. Your reference to “McConnell republican” is interesting in that Republican voter registrations seriously outnumber Democrats, which some thought could get her re-elected with a party switch. But the extremist right (sizable % of Rs here) hates Mitch. She’d have had no chance as a Republican. My strongest Dem activist friends didn’t see her as shifting right so much as becoming a corporate/capitalist shill - not political but bought out for her own self interests.
Not sure if you’re suggesting there’s suspicion of Gallego shifting vis a vis his Riley vote? He’s consistent - voted for the House bill in 2024 before we elected him Senator.
I am pretty liberal, but I have come to understand that we need to change the way we speak about immigration. It’s not that Democratic presidents don’t enforce immigration rules, it’s that they don’t want to be seen as enforcing them. Obama deported a whole lot of Latinos. Yes, it’s ok to send dangerous gang members to Guantanamo if their countries don’t take them back, but not others. It’s not ok to deport someone for a traffic violation. I wish we could get to a place where we could seriously speak about common sense immigration policies that make it easier for law abiding people to regularize their status while supporting harsher measures for those who break the law. As a liberal Latina, I would support that. Also, Mike, it’s Colombian.
I caught that too Colombian🤣 and yes as a liberal Latina born in queens of Ecuadorian and Colombian parents I am more in Ruben’s way of thinking. My parents felt the same way - you break laws your out - you commit crimes your out. Once Dems are in power we can craft and vote in sensible, common sense immigration laws that work for everyone - without the GOP cruelty
I don’t know the landscape of early 90’s democratic politics, but can venture a guess it wasn’t as afraid of single issue interest groups. When the Democratic brand is about being led by these progressive groups, it loses the middle of the electorate. Time will tell if Gallegos is the second coming but he at least seems to know the AZ Latino voters.
Mike, I have always appreciated your perspectives, going back many years, and I get the border security issues, which the Dems finally came to out of desperation with the Lankford bill. So some questions: how do Latinos view the mass deportations taking place now, which go well beyond violent criminals to Guantanamo? Since the issue was not emphasized by the Dems during the campaign, I'm guessing that polling showed they are viewed favorably by many Latinos. Also: Eliminating birthright citizenship? Eliminating TPS for Venezuelans (which conservatives should oppose since it's a flight of middle-class people from a left-wing dictatorship)? Ending refugee and asylum policies? Deporting undocumented who have been here a long time? DACA? I admit I haven't read your book, but overall, what has been the Latino response to the Trump actions so far? I expect I'll read that in your next few columns, or maybe previous ones I haven't seen.
Great to hear from you! Yes I cover this extensively in my book and in other articles here on my substack and will, of course, write on it a lot as it all unfolds.
Latinos are for tighter and humane border security and pretty much always have been.
Latinos want a pathway to citizenship that is fair and reasonable and doesn’t allow anyone to slip in line.
Latinos don’t want to see families broken up, kids taken from their parents or undue burdens placed on otherwise law abiding people.
This doesn’t make Democrats right or wrong. This doesn’t make Republicans right or wrong. It doesn’t mean Latinos are either or - and this is the whole point of my book.
Latinos are split on this like everyone else. That’s a good healthy marker for the Latino community, both parties and the country.
2018 was a good illustration of GOP overreach and the blowback Republicans got from the ICE raids. Latinos punished Republicans at the midterms.
But doing nothing (or worse doing wrong) isn’t an option either and that’s what happened in 2024. Latinos punished Democrats at the polls.
There will be no party that wins this immigration fight there will only be one that loses and that will be the party that over reaches first. I wrote about this on a previous substack.
Thanks for reaching out Lenny. Hope you and the family are well!
I'm a Latina in South Florida. The vibe from Latinos with papers is always to have papers with you. If you are undocumented, you keep your head down. However, if you get caught without papers the vibe is.... Like using your ex's Netflix account without paying. Enjoy while you can, but someday the ex will change the password and you know that day is coming. Use your time to get your shit together for when the day comes. Like, they know their stay is illegal, it's not a big surprise that ICE is onto you.
The second vibe is that no one likes the criminals, it's seen like a rotten apple spoiling the whole bunch. And nobody's actually likes Venezuelans, they have a bad reputation as criminals. If you look at YouTube videos from Colombia and Peru on YouTube and how they handle Venezuelans, it's ugly. But it's generally understood a rotten apple is ruining it for everyone, papers or no papers. But most Cubans down here love Trump and are fully onboard with him. But then again, they have papers.
Thanks for the helpful article - led me to listen to Gallego’s NYT interview. Enlightening. How do we get more people on board with his leadership? He understands where we need to go. Also, Mike, are you at all familiar with a former Hawaii Congressman named Cec Heftel?
I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that before this, I had never heard Ruben Gallego interviewed. I can see why he is so successful at connecting with everyday working men and women, but especially men. He offered clear and understandable answers to virtually every question. I never felt he was defecting or giving “word salad” non-answers so typical of politicians. We need more of this in our representatives on both sides of the aisle, but I’ll settle for more on the side that is not trying to burn it all down.
How you’ve chosen to write this article is a bit muddled. Your piece is making two points, but they aren’t entirely reconciled…
You’re saying that Latino voters are not primarily driven by immigration policy despite what Democratic strategists and Latino advocacy groups have long overemphasized as the defining issue for Latino voters when, in reality, other concerns (like maybe jobs, wages, and public safety) take priority. Gallego, according to you, recognized this. Making him “of the Latinos for the Latinos” kind of sentiment.
Then, you’re saying Gallego is now vocal about strong immigration laws. He’s positioning himself more as a moderate on immigration, "challenging" the Democratic establishment’s narrative. His support for border security measures (such as co-authoring The Laken Riley Act, which is an incredibly harmful piece of legislation, btw) reflects an alignment with blue-collar Latinos rather than progressive immigration advocates.
You're saying that you celebrate Gallego for rejecting the idea that Latino voters primarily care about immigration. Then, at the same time, you highlight his shift toward supporting stricter immigration laws as a reason for his success.
While not entirely articulated clearly, the point I think you’re trying to make is that Latino voters don’t actually prioritize immigration, but when they do, they lean toward a moderate or even stricter stance—so (in your mind) Gallego is tapping into that more than progressive Democrats have.
My main problem with this piece (besides your inability to accurately articulate your point) is that you’re writing this in such a sensationalist way, using absolute language. That might be why it feels disjointed—it’s trying to make a bold declaration rather than fully flesh out the nuances.
Your article sets up a false binary—either you support strict immigration enforcement, or you’re part of the so-called “Latino political establishment” that supposedly misrepresents Latino voters. That framing oversimplifies both Democratic positions and Latino perspectives.
It’s frustrating because, as you pointed out, most liberals do want border security, but what you fail to see is that they also care about humane immigration policies. The real issue isn’t whether immigration laws should exist but rather how they’re enforced—whether they protect human dignity and avoid blanket criminalization of all undocumented people. Instead, the piece paints progressives as if they’re against any kind of border control, which is a common but misleading characterization.
Also, your broad generalizations about "progressives" are ironic, given that you criticize Democrats for treating Latino voters as a monolith. You're essentially doing the same thing—flattening progressive Democrats into one extreme rather than acknowledging the range of opinions within the party.
It feels like your article is more interested in scoring political points than engaging with the complexity of immigration policy or Latino voter preferences. Real political dynamics are rarely that black and white.
This is something I struggled with in your book. You don’t seem to have a cohesive framework to accurately articulate your ideas, opinions, and polling facts. It all ends up coming across as meritless word vomit.
You should listen instead of becoming easily offended. I read your book and it was very clear where you stood. I guess you only want to hear “kudos” instead of a different perspective of what can be interpreted in your piece.
You’re proving my point by continuing to deal in absolutes. ‘Maybe you just don’t want to see the obvious’—what does that even mean? The ‘obvious’ according to whom? Your entire argument assumes that anyone who doesn’t fully agree with you must be blind to reality, when in fact, I’m making the case that this issue isn’t black and white. That’s the problem—your framing leaves no room for nuance, no room for facts that complicate your narrative, just sweeping generalizations that conveniently affirm what you’ve ‘been articulating for over a decade.’ If your position is as airtight as you claim, you shouldn’t have to rely on dismissiveness and one-liners to defend it. All good. We can agree to disagree.
The obvious is that as Democrats pursued progressive border policies they have lost more and more Latino voters.
I’m sorry but I really value intelligent dis mission on my platforms and you’re either not genuine in your interest or unable to comprehend the obvious outcomes and data of ten years worth of results.
My whole book is literally predicated on the fact that this isn’t black and white - THATS LITERALLY THE NAME OF THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK.
I’ve tried to ask you to go away nicely because you’re lowering the discourse. At this point I’m going to block you.
Actually it does work. Illegal immigration declined from 2007-2021 after Biden implemented the most progressive (meaning lax) border security policies in years.
We can have border security without being racist. You’re killing your party and just flat wrong politically and from a policy perspective
And PS it’s hardly “my” party! I’m a journalist, not an apparatchik. I just see what’s not working. Start with Obama being “Deporter in Chief” and deporting more people than Trump so he could get an immigration bill through. Did that work? No. Whatever the Dems do the Republicans succeed in painting them as “soft” on immigration. So why not tell the truth for a change? Border security is bullshit. The problem is far more complex and so are the solutions. We are bargaining away our humanity for political expedience that doesn’t even work. Gallego’s pandering might have been one of the only occasions when it did, because of his unique set of circumstances. PS I agree that if he were not Latino he’d be talked about as a presidential prospect. That’s fucked. Maybe it’ll change.
Obama never tried to get anything through. He had the chance and chose health care instead. The Democrats have never been serious about it. Ever. That’s why it sticks. Show me a Democrats border security plan anytime from 1986 to 2024 when they realized they screwed themselves and lost Latino voters who had also had enough.
Now they want to complain.
FAFO…Democrats are at the find out phase when they could’ve had something reasonable at least three times since 1993.
Sorry… no legit journalist talks like this and acts like they aren’t a knee jerk reactionary “ . Instead we’ve got fucking Nazis supported by Vance. Rule #1 Don’t play your opponents’ game.”
It’s your party. It’s your movement and real people are suffering because the party has been consumed by ideologues…again, the public views Democrats as more extreme than Republicans and you’re illustrating why
I agree no Democrat ever had a plan. But after the immigration reform bill under Bush 43 got blown up in the Senate, I don’t think we will ever get one done. So I can understand why Obama chose healthcare, given millions people just lost their jobs and had higher saliency than immigration during his first term.
Most Democrats would have supported the Laken Riley Act if it had included provisions for due process; that was the sticking point. Due Process. Which even people who've committed violent crimes and are in this country illegally are entitled to under our Constitution. Just like any other criminal defendant. I resent the implication that Democrats who refused to vote for a flawed bill that is constitutionally suspect are somehow soft on violent crime. My heart breaks for Laken Riley's family and friends. But that bill has serious, likely unconstitutional, problems. It was probably a politically smart vote for Gallego given the politics of AZ, and he was probably under a stronger spotlight BECAUSE of his Latino heritage.
I strongly suspect Gallego's move to the center on some issues has Democrats on edge because they watched his predecessor get elected as a progressive Democrat only to end her term as a McConnell republican/independent - which, ironically, is the reason Gallego even had an opening to run for her seat; he was seen the more progressive alternative. The same thing is currently happening with John Fetterman, who's moved sharply to the MAGA right, again after running as a progressive and receiving massive support from the left and middle of the party. So, I wouldn't be so quick to assign motives to people criticizing some of Gallego's votes. There are serious and legitimate reasons for that criticism. As you point out, not everything is about immigration just because we're talking about a Latino politician.
Jane - strongly agree there are serious civil rights issues in the Riley Act. I advocated to BOTH my AZ senators to work for amendments. I've supported both, donated. A hard truth (might have been some smart guy named Madrid saying it): you don't get to make serious amendments unless your party wins enough seats first. Gallego & Kelly both voted for the flawed bill.
So here we are. Hard to obtain compromises as minority party. Hard to win Senate back unless we achieve better communication w/voters, esp low-info folks who seem more susceptible to flat-out falsehoods when Republicans lie forcefully and make connections in their communities. I hope Dems will strive to make those connections with truth & by listening to what working class &/or non-college educated folks are experiencing. There IS a way forward AND it's not by doing the same thing as the past 20+ years.
p.s. - my take on Kyrsten Sinema is that she burned more bridges to her constituents than she built. Less to do with her actually policy views (at whatever point in time) or shifts therein. People I know in either party grew to dislike her as her term went along; she wasn't a politician for us common folk back home. I believe Gallego's heritage helped him, but more so that he made connections to voters via hard work - e.g. he's not Indigenous but personally visited all 22 Native Nations in Arizona, including one he reached via miles of hiking. That's commitment beyond publicity stunt.
I get that both AZ senators did what was expedient given the politics of their state. That doesn't change the fact that the Laken Riley bill was constitutionally flawed. I stand on the fact that most Democrats would have voted in favor of it had the due process flaws been corrected.
It was Sinema's betrayal of the voters who worked to get her elected that created the opening for Gallego to run. It's also the reason Democrats are suspicious of a politician who runs as a progressive suddenly moving right on certain issues. People's suspicions are well grounded.
Agree wholeheartedly that the Democrats need a communications overhaul that better aligns with where most voters get their information, which is online. The party doesn't appear to be doing that work, but independent media is filling that vacuum. As far as low-info voters are concerned, sadly, I think pain is end up being the best teacher. Some folks are already waking up to the damage they voted for; others, I suspect, will be joining their ranks.
One thing that gets lost in discussions like these is that 2024 presidential election was close, very close. It's easy to over-read results that were this close. For example, for all the chatter about disconnected Democrats allegedly are from working class and non-college educated voters, here in NC nearly the entire ballot of state offices from governor on down were carried by Democrats.
Today’s example of why we think she’s so special:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/02/18/why-did-kyrsten-sinema-campaign-spend-so-much-on-security-expenses/78548490007/
Not a conservative issue, a “her” issue. But even Sinema is no Kari Lake!
In my 10 years in AZ I’ve seen us produce some uniquely flawed candidates. Sinema didn’t have to be one but made her choices. Your reference to “McConnell republican” is interesting in that Republican voter registrations seriously outnumber Democrats, which some thought could get her re-elected with a party switch. But the extremist right (sizable % of Rs here) hates Mitch. She’d have had no chance as a Republican. My strongest Dem activist friends didn’t see her as shifting right so much as becoming a corporate/capitalist shill - not political but bought out for her own self interests.
Not sure if you’re suggesting there’s suspicion of Gallego shifting vis a vis his Riley vote? He’s consistent - voted for the House bill in 2024 before we elected him Senator.
I am pretty liberal, but I have come to understand that we need to change the way we speak about immigration. It’s not that Democratic presidents don’t enforce immigration rules, it’s that they don’t want to be seen as enforcing them. Obama deported a whole lot of Latinos. Yes, it’s ok to send dangerous gang members to Guantanamo if their countries don’t take them back, but not others. It’s not ok to deport someone for a traffic violation. I wish we could get to a place where we could seriously speak about common sense immigration policies that make it easier for law abiding people to regularize their status while supporting harsher measures for those who break the law. As a liberal Latina, I would support that. Also, Mike, it’s Colombian.
I caught that too Colombian🤣 and yes as a liberal Latina born in queens of Ecuadorian and Colombian parents I am more in Ruben’s way of thinking. My parents felt the same way - you break laws your out - you commit crimes your out. Once Dems are in power we can craft and vote in sensible, common sense immigration laws that work for everyone - without the GOP cruelty
This is a good point. All of this can change with a change in power in Washington DC
So many in the progressive movement would rather lose and feel self righteous than win and have to moderate.
Thank you for recommending Senator Gallego’s interview. It gives me thought.
I don’t know the landscape of early 90’s democratic politics, but can venture a guess it wasn’t as afraid of single issue interest groups. When the Democratic brand is about being led by these progressive groups, it loses the middle of the electorate. Time will tell if Gallegos is the second coming but he at least seems to know the AZ Latino voters.
Mike, I have always appreciated your perspectives, going back many years, and I get the border security issues, which the Dems finally came to out of desperation with the Lankford bill. So some questions: how do Latinos view the mass deportations taking place now, which go well beyond violent criminals to Guantanamo? Since the issue was not emphasized by the Dems during the campaign, I'm guessing that polling showed they are viewed favorably by many Latinos. Also: Eliminating birthright citizenship? Eliminating TPS for Venezuelans (which conservatives should oppose since it's a flight of middle-class people from a left-wing dictatorship)? Ending refugee and asylum policies? Deporting undocumented who have been here a long time? DACA? I admit I haven't read your book, but overall, what has been the Latino response to the Trump actions so far? I expect I'll read that in your next few columns, or maybe previous ones I haven't seen.
Lenny
Great to hear from you! Yes I cover this extensively in my book and in other articles here on my substack and will, of course, write on it a lot as it all unfolds.
Latinos are for tighter and humane border security and pretty much always have been.
Latinos want a pathway to citizenship that is fair and reasonable and doesn’t allow anyone to slip in line.
Latinos don’t want to see families broken up, kids taken from their parents or undue burdens placed on otherwise law abiding people.
This doesn’t make Democrats right or wrong. This doesn’t make Republicans right or wrong. It doesn’t mean Latinos are either or - and this is the whole point of my book.
Latinos are split on this like everyone else. That’s a good healthy marker for the Latino community, both parties and the country.
2018 was a good illustration of GOP overreach and the blowback Republicans got from the ICE raids. Latinos punished Republicans at the midterms.
But doing nothing (or worse doing wrong) isn’t an option either and that’s what happened in 2024. Latinos punished Democrats at the polls.
There will be no party that wins this immigration fight there will only be one that loses and that will be the party that over reaches first. I wrote about this on a previous substack.
Thanks for reaching out Lenny. Hope you and the family are well!
I'm a Latina in South Florida. The vibe from Latinos with papers is always to have papers with you. If you are undocumented, you keep your head down. However, if you get caught without papers the vibe is.... Like using your ex's Netflix account without paying. Enjoy while you can, but someday the ex will change the password and you know that day is coming. Use your time to get your shit together for when the day comes. Like, they know their stay is illegal, it's not a big surprise that ICE is onto you.
The second vibe is that no one likes the criminals, it's seen like a rotten apple spoiling the whole bunch. And nobody's actually likes Venezuelans, they have a bad reputation as criminals. If you look at YouTube videos from Colombia and Peru on YouTube and how they handle Venezuelans, it's ugly. But it's generally understood a rotten apple is ruining it for everyone, papers or no papers. But most Cubans down here love Trump and are fully onboard with him. But then again, they have papers.
Thanks for the helpful article - led me to listen to Gallego’s NYT interview. Enlightening. How do we get more people on board with his leadership? He understands where we need to go. Also, Mike, are you at all familiar with a former Hawaii Congressman named Cec Heftel?
I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that before this, I had never heard Ruben Gallego interviewed. I can see why he is so successful at connecting with everyday working men and women, but especially men. He offered clear and understandable answers to virtually every question. I never felt he was defecting or giving “word salad” non-answers so typical of politicians. We need more of this in our representatives on both sides of the aisle, but I’ll settle for more on the side that is not trying to burn it all down.
How you’ve chosen to write this article is a bit muddled. Your piece is making two points, but they aren’t entirely reconciled…
You’re saying that Latino voters are not primarily driven by immigration policy despite what Democratic strategists and Latino advocacy groups have long overemphasized as the defining issue for Latino voters when, in reality, other concerns (like maybe jobs, wages, and public safety) take priority. Gallego, according to you, recognized this. Making him “of the Latinos for the Latinos” kind of sentiment.
Then, you’re saying Gallego is now vocal about strong immigration laws. He’s positioning himself more as a moderate on immigration, "challenging" the Democratic establishment’s narrative. His support for border security measures (such as co-authoring The Laken Riley Act, which is an incredibly harmful piece of legislation, btw) reflects an alignment with blue-collar Latinos rather than progressive immigration advocates.
You're saying that you celebrate Gallego for rejecting the idea that Latino voters primarily care about immigration. Then, at the same time, you highlight his shift toward supporting stricter immigration laws as a reason for his success.
While not entirely articulated clearly, the point I think you’re trying to make is that Latino voters don’t actually prioritize immigration, but when they do, they lean toward a moderate or even stricter stance—so (in your mind) Gallego is tapping into that more than progressive Democrats have.
My main problem with this piece (besides your inability to accurately articulate your point) is that you’re writing this in such a sensationalist way, using absolute language. That might be why it feels disjointed—it’s trying to make a bold declaration rather than fully flesh out the nuances.
Your article sets up a false binary—either you support strict immigration enforcement, or you’re part of the so-called “Latino political establishment” that supposedly misrepresents Latino voters. That framing oversimplifies both Democratic positions and Latino perspectives.
It’s frustrating because, as you pointed out, most liberals do want border security, but what you fail to see is that they also care about humane immigration policies. The real issue isn’t whether immigration laws should exist but rather how they’re enforced—whether they protect human dignity and avoid blanket criminalization of all undocumented people. Instead, the piece paints progressives as if they’re against any kind of border control, which is a common but misleading characterization.
Also, your broad generalizations about "progressives" are ironic, given that you criticize Democrats for treating Latino voters as a monolith. You're essentially doing the same thing—flattening progressive Democrats into one extreme rather than acknowledging the range of opinions within the party.
It feels like your article is more interested in scoring political points than engaging with the complexity of immigration policy or Latino voter preferences. Real political dynamics are rarely that black and white.
This is something I struggled with in your book. You don’t seem to have a cohesive framework to accurately articulate your ideas, opinions, and polling facts. It all ends up coming across as meritless word vomit.
Or maybe you just don’t want to see the obvious and accept progressives have been both dishonest and wrong on the issue.
Pretty sure this is all working out as clearly as I’ve been articulating for over a decade.
You may want to go vomit elsewhere. Thanks for dropping by!
You should listen instead of becoming easily offended. I read your book and it was very clear where you stood. I guess you only want to hear “kudos” instead of a different perspective of what can be interpreted in your piece.
You’re proving my point by continuing to deal in absolutes. ‘Maybe you just don’t want to see the obvious’—what does that even mean? The ‘obvious’ according to whom? Your entire argument assumes that anyone who doesn’t fully agree with you must be blind to reality, when in fact, I’m making the case that this issue isn’t black and white. That’s the problem—your framing leaves no room for nuance, no room for facts that complicate your narrative, just sweeping generalizations that conveniently affirm what you’ve ‘been articulating for over a decade.’ If your position is as airtight as you claim, you shouldn’t have to rely on dismissiveness and one-liners to defend it. All good. We can agree to disagree.
The obvious is that as Democrats pursued progressive border policies they have lost more and more Latino voters.
I’m sorry but I really value intelligent dis mission on my platforms and you’re either not genuine in your interest or unable to comprehend the obvious outcomes and data of ten years worth of results.
My whole book is literally predicated on the fact that this isn’t black and white - THATS LITERALLY THE NAME OF THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK.
I’ve tried to ask you to go away nicely because you’re lowering the discourse. At this point I’m going to block you.
Blocking you, too. You don’t belong on my bookshelf.
I used to think you were very suspect because of your work with The Lincoln Project, but this was an excellent piece. Good job, Mike.
Hi
In this sentence, did you mean to say ‘no’ instead of ‘now’
There is now white Democrat who could ever muster the political courage to say this
Yes ‘no’ would be correct. Thank you.
Actually it does work. Illegal immigration declined from 2007-2021 after Biden implemented the most progressive (meaning lax) border security policies in years.
We can have border security without being racist. You’re killing your party and just flat wrong politically and from a policy perspective
All good Mike. Now do Richie Torres (and apologies if you already have).
And PS it’s hardly “my” party! I’m a journalist, not an apparatchik. I just see what’s not working. Start with Obama being “Deporter in Chief” and deporting more people than Trump so he could get an immigration bill through. Did that work? No. Whatever the Dems do the Republicans succeed in painting them as “soft” on immigration. So why not tell the truth for a change? Border security is bullshit. The problem is far more complex and so are the solutions. We are bargaining away our humanity for political expedience that doesn’t even work. Gallego’s pandering might have been one of the only occasions when it did, because of his unique set of circumstances. PS I agree that if he were not Latino he’d be talked about as a presidential prospect. That’s fucked. Maybe it’ll change.
Obama never tried to get anything through. He had the chance and chose health care instead. The Democrats have never been serious about it. Ever. That’s why it sticks. Show me a Democrats border security plan anytime from 1986 to 2024 when they realized they screwed themselves and lost Latino voters who had also had enough.
Now they want to complain.
FAFO…Democrats are at the find out phase when they could’ve had something reasonable at least three times since 1993.
Sorry… no legit journalist talks like this and acts like they aren’t a knee jerk reactionary “ . Instead we’ve got fucking Nazis supported by Vance. Rule #1 Don’t play your opponents’ game.”
It’s your party. It’s your movement and real people are suffering because the party has been consumed by ideologues…again, the public views Democrats as more extreme than Republicans and you’re illustrating why
I agree no Democrat ever had a plan. But after the immigration reform bill under Bush 43 got blown up in the Senate, I don’t think we will ever get one done. So I can understand why Obama chose healthcare, given millions people just lost their jobs and had higher saliency than immigration during his first term.