Liquidation Awaits the Democratic Party in 2028
How Did Democratic Fear of Law Enforcement Lead Us to This Point?
On a chilly January morning at 5 a.m., Johana Gutierrez and Salvador Alfaro were jolted awake by loud banging on their door and flashlights flashing through their windows. Their children and relatives were still asleep inside. Moments later, armed individuals stood in their living room.
The children, still in their pajamas, were scared and crying as officials conducted a room-by-room search, going through bedrooms, the kitchen, the laundry room, and even the garage. When Gutierrez reached for her phone, she was told to stay still. When she tried to get identification, one agent placed a hand on his gun, threatening her with arrest.
No judicial warrant was present, nor was there any urgency. The officers had deceived their way into the home.
Democratic Senator Critiques Party’s Compliance with ‘Border Security’ Rhetoric
By the time they departed, Gutierrez and her 10-year-old son had vanished, taken away in an unmarked vehicle to a detention center.
This incident didn’t happen in Donald Trump’s America; it took place during Barack Obama’s presidency.
The operation, part of a 2016 ICE initiative, led to the arrest of 121 individuals, predominantly mothers and children, who had final deportation orders. The ACLU deemed this a “mockery of due process.” Such episodes left deep scars within the Democratic Party.
Moreover, they contributed to the misleading idea that Obama-era immigration enforcement was somehow milder or notably different from other administrations.
Supreme Court to Allow President Trump’s Open Immigration Policy
However, that simply wasn’t the case.
President Obama never suggested that enforcement was without its painful consequences. In 2011, he acknowledged in a speech in El Paso, “Under current law, it’s not just criminals who face removal; sometimes it includes families and decent individuals with good intentions. We won’t take pleasure in the pain it causes.”
Despite facing criticism from various interest groups, he firmly enforced the law.
Tom Homan, now Trump’s border czar, oversaw the deportation program back then and was recognized with commendations from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security for his impressive work. Obama not only inherited ICE but also modernized, expanded, and enhanced its effectiveness.
Trump didn’t create aggressive domestic policing; he weaponized it, adding elements of cruelty and chaos to an already existing system.
Yet, within the Democratic Party, Obama’s legacy has become a hot-button issue. The term “Foreign Transport Officer” became a label that could taint any presidential hopeful in 2020.
Jonathan Turley: Democratic Politicians Are Putting Lives at Risk with Reckless Anti-ICE Rhetoric
And Joe Biden faced the consequences.
I witnessed this firsthand. Our campaign was often overly cautious about immigration. Whenever it came up, Biden and Dr. Jill Biden emphasized compassion and decency. The message was unmistakable: Biden would not mimic Trump’s approach, nor would he mirror Obama’s.
Back in 1988, when George H.W. Bush spoke of a “kinder, gentler America,” Nancy Reagan infamously questioned, “Who’s kinder?” By 2020, our campaign proactively answered that.
Democratic Senator Warner Acknowledges Biden’s Mistakes at the Border, Claims ICE Now Targets Non-Criminals
Yet in the White House, this compassionate rhetoric morphed into policy— a policy that ultimately faltered.
Biden’s drastic shift away from both Trump’s and Obama’s executive styles brought one of the most significant failures in his governance. By dismantling deterrents, reevaluating enforcement practices, and suggesting retreat, we inadvertently contributed to the collapse of the entire immigration system and set the stage for Trump’s potential return.
Though Biden didn’t instigate global instability, regional violence, or economic turmoil, he did opt for a governance style that prioritized political flexibility over party credibility. Once trust erodes, regaining it becomes a daunting challenge.
For nearly twenty years, the Democratic Party has engaged in a bitter internal conflict regarding enforcement. We facially treat this as a debate about compassion versus cruelty, but the real question is whether the dominant party can admit out loud that coercion is not a moral failing but rather essential for an operational system.
Both Obama and Biden understood this undeniable truth: there is no administrative remedy for America’s immigration dilemma. The persistence of the outdated 1986 Act highlights this necessity. We need a law to address it. Legislation demands both cooperation and compromise. Yet, compromise remains elusive.
Instead, the Democrats have turned ICE into a battleground of moral crises.
It’s no longer about “How do we reform?” or “What should our mission be?” It has become a test of loyalty: are you advocating for its abolition, or are you willing to fund it?
Every budgetary cycle has now devolved into a ritual of self-denunciation. Supporting ICE is perceived as a moral defeat; defunding it is hailed as virtuous. Consequently, political parties often find themselves unable to clearly articulate whether they truly believe in enforcing their laws.
In essence, every Democratic president will find themselves trapped in the same dilemma.
Enforcing the law risks dissent within their coalition. If enforcement fails, the system disintegrates, and voters respond negatively.
Obama chose enforcement and accepted the fallout within his party.
Biden opted for accommodation and faced the repercussions in governance and politics.
For More FOX News Opinions, Click Here
Poor policy equals poor politics.
The grim but undeniable reality is that the country cannot operate without dependable law enforcement. This isn’t about indiscriminate enforcement, but rather about maintaining visible, consistent, and lawful practices.
Without it, there can be no security at the borders. They become fictitious.
The demand to “Abolish ICE” was never a serious governance strategy, similar to the push to “defund the police.” It served more as a moral signal than a feasible solution. Like the “Defund the Police” movement, this attempts at moral positioning led only to confusion, backlash, and political self-sabotage.
Obama grasped something that the party still struggles to express: America can be both a land of immigrants and one of laws. These concepts do not oppose each other; they are inherently linked.
Until Democrats cease viewing coercion as a moral failure and begin recognizing it as a necessary duty of governance, we will oscillate between posturing for virtue and performing damage control. Future Democratic candidates in 2028 will continue paying the price for decisions that the party still dreads addressing.
For More Insights, Click Here
