“If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will.”
That warning came from David Frum in an April 2019 article about America’s struggles with immigration control. He wrote that “demagogues rise by talking about issues that matter to people, and that more conventional leaders appear unwilling or unable to address,” and that unaddressed problems would be exploited by irresponsible actors.
In 2020, that prediction seemed off-base. Voters rejected Donald Trump, and for the first time in over 50 years, Gallup found that more Americans favored increasing immigration than decreasing it—a clear signal against Trump’s family separation policies and rhetoric targeting Mexicans and Muslims. Seventy-seven percent also said immigration was beneficial to the United States. But when Joe Biden took office and border crossings surged, the political landscape shifted. By 2024, a majority wanted less immigration, Trump won the presidency promising the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, and an analysis of the vote found that “too many immigrants crossed the border” was a top reason voters rejected Kamala Harris.
Today, Frum’s warning feels eerily accurate. The current administration has deployed officers onto American streets, promising “retribution.” Reports detail detentions, pepper spray use, assaults, shootings, and deaths. Officials have also been caught making false statements about events captured on video.
A majority now disapproves of the current administration’s handling of immigration, according to a poll conducted in January 2026. Democrats are attempting to require ICE officers to wear body cameras and obtain warrants, potentially regaining Congress in the process—but the coalition supporting the current administration is just as susceptible to voter backlash. A Democratic victory in 2026 likely won’t end the cycle of public dissatisfaction with both parties’ approaches to immigration.
Having covered immigration for 25 years, here are five key truths lawmakers need to acknowledge to create popular and effective immigration policy.
1. Support for total deportation isn’t as strong as it appears.
Many supporters of the current administration claim that deporting all undocumented immigrants is a reasonable goal, arguing that upholding the rule of law demands it. One populist commentator even stated, “I don’t care if it’s a grandma who’s been here for 23 years…We either have laws or we don’t.”
However, this logic is overly simplistic. In practice, presidents don’t—and can’t—catch anywhere near 100 percent of lawbreakers due to limited resources and real-world trade-offs. Consider tax law: while most Americans disapprove of tax evasion, few would support deploying armed agents to search homes and businesses to find every offender.
Similarly, while polls show support for deporting all undocumented immigrants, that support likely diminishes when people consider the practical implications—house-to-house raids, or choosing between deporting long-term residents and funding essential programs like cancer research.
2. A majority of Americans favor some level of immigration enforcement, especially for those who commit violent crimes.
While excessive enforcement can undermine liberty, insufficient enforcement undermines democracy. Republicans are correct that immigration laws were duly enacted, and polling data consistently shows Americans want meaningful enforcement.
An Associated Press poll found that 83 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes, a view shared by 79 percent of Democrats. Policies contradicting this preference in some Democratic-controlled areas harm public safety and the coalition’s political interests.
Sanctuary cities are valuable insofar as they prevent local police from enforcing immigration law, encouraging cooperation with law enforcement. However, jailers shouldn’t refuse all cooperation with deportations. Focusing on incarcerated individuals—who are already in custody—is a sensible approach.
3. Refugee crises are inevitable—and require proactive planning.
One of the most difficult challenges is responding to sudden surges of people fleeing war, natural disasters, or political instability. While denying entry to desperate refugees seems cruel, large, unanticipated inflows can overwhelm voters and empower authoritarian movements. Breaking this cycle requires planning and collaboration between those who favor restriction and inclusion. All solutions have drawbacks, but the status quo is the most problematic.
4. Demonizing immigrants is concerning to many, even those who support stricter policies.
Deportation is one thing; vilification is another. Historically, the Republican Party acknowledged the value and humanity of immigrants—as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did in 1980, noting that many undocumented immigrants were “honorable, decent, family-loving people.”
Today, with a larger immigrant population and lower violent crime rates than in the 1980s and 90s, data suggests that undocumented immigrants commit felonies at lower rates than citizens and authorized immigrants. While some do commit serious crimes, portraying the entire group as criminals is misleading and inflammatory. Many Americans find such rhetoric disturbing.
This isn’t simply political correctness. U.S. history is filled with examples of demonizing minority groups leading to violence, like the Los Angeles Chinese massacre, the World War I-era lynching of ethnic Germans, and the Zoot Suit Riots. While humans haven’t evolved, cultural guardrails—which are now being dismantled—have prevented similar atrocities.
5. Fear of immigration exists in every high-immigration country—and addressing those fears is crucial.
The United States must acknowledge those who fear immigration. While many embrace diversity, a segment of the population is inherently uncomfortable with difference—a predisposition that may be partly innate.
America shouldn’t allow xenophobes to persecute immigrants, but their views influence our culture and politics. We can influence whether that influence is constructive or destructive. Psychologist Karen Stenner’s work suggests liberals should frame immigration not as a celebration of diversity, but as a story of people seeking safety and opportunity—appealing to shared values. She also advocates for practical assimilation policies, like English language assistance, and controlled immigration flows.
Stenner argues that emphasizing “unconstrained diversity” can push those predisposed to authoritarianism to extremes. When authoritarians are activated, the outcome depends on how conservatives react. They can support repression or uphold pluralism—but only if they feel reassured about the pace of change and the rules of the game.
Sustainable immigration policy must reflect the public will. Instead of trying to change public opinion, we’ve seen fringe factions impose unpopular positions on majorities. Politicians from both parties should moderate their stances to align with voter preferences. Otherwise, continued political failures could erode faith in democracy itself.
