
None of This Is a Distraction
Centrist Democrats want to abandon Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the name of practicality. But they don't need to.
On March 15, the Trump administration deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a lawful Maryland resident of the United States with protected immigration status. Abrego Garcia’s case is complicated, and stretches back years, but the one clearcut ruling passed down in court was that he was allowed to be in this country. He was allowed to work here. He was not supposed to be deported back to his native El Salvador, because if he was, he could be killed.
Abrego Garcia is still incarcerated in El Salvador. He is alive, as far as we know, in some part thanks to the devoted efforts of a handful of Democratic politicians who have spent both time and political capital to personally seek after his status and well being. These acts are some of the most effective a politician can take: what else are our representatives for, if not to physically represent and advocate for the people under their care? Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, for example, recognized a simple truth: that his personal profile was large enough that he could physically travel to El Salvador and challenge its government, even one allied with a hostile political party in his own country, on behalf of his constituent without risking his own safety. They weren’t going to put him in jail, so he could show up and demand answers. This got results: see the picture above.
And yet, to a certain cadre of Democratic politicians, these acts are unwise. They are a “distraction.” Per NBC News:
As California Gov. Gavin Newsom rolled out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs, he had little to say about the Abrego Garcia case when asked about it.
“This is the distraction of the day. The art of distraction,” Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, said of Trump invoking MS-13 to justify his actions. “And here, we zig and zag. This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it.”
While noting that the government needs to abide by court orders and the rule of law, Newsom added, “It’s exactly the debate they want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs; they don’t want to be accountable to markets today.”
As the Washington Post notes, immigration, particularly the barbaric immigration policies pursued by the second Trump administration, is hardly an “80-20” issue. Eighty percent of Americans certainly do not think a protected resident should be in a Salvadorian concentration camp. But the simple fact that immigration is a more politically fraught issue than a straight-line economic message has been enough to convince Newsom and an entire swath of the consultant class that people like Abrego Garcia should just be forgotten.
Per NBC again:
“I think it’s a mistake to focus Democratic opposition on border and immigration because that’s playing on Trump’s turf and on an issue where people continue to support how he’s handling,” said one Democratic operative, who spoke candidly about the sensitive topic on condition of anonymity. “And it’s an issue where most voters see Democrats being particularly weak on, and focusing all the opposition on the issue plays into that perception.”
A second Democratic strategist said “there is space to fight back on multiple fronts” against the Trump administration, but emphasized that “the strongest point of contrast” is on economic issues, by driving the message that he’s working for “the billionaire boys club.”
The strategist said that “prices, costs and the economy are top of mind for voters — yesterday, today and next November.”
What Newsom and these consultants are doing is engaging openly with the most cynical imagining of politics possible. What makes this view dangerous is that it is, in part, correct: an economic appeal to voters probably has better polling numbers and projections than one that focuses on immigration. The focus groups say so, I’m sure. They will call it shrewd, rational, focused — but at its heart, this approach is just cowardice. And what’s more, it doesn’t work.
The Democrats focused heavily on areas in which they knew they could win in 2024 — abortion rights, in particular. In some areas — states where abortion referendums were directly on the ballot, in particular — this was successful. It was certainly a worthy cause. But overall, across the nation, they lost. They lost not because they prioritized abortion or other issues, but because of the issues they didn’t engage with. The Trump campaign was everywhere. They had a statement on basically everything. None of those statements said anything and most of them were either vile or incomprehensible, but there they were. Trump always had an answer.
And while I understand the need for politicians to focus on certain strengths over others, I think what we’ve learned most in this new era of politics is that people respond to action. They respond to commitment and to clear answers. And fortunately, for most politicians, these could be easy to provide. Just say something! Do something! It doesn’t have to be your whole campaign, your whole career. But what people remember, I think, is the candidates who show up.
You won’t win over every voter by advocating for Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return. But you won’t win over every voter by talking about grocery prices constantly either. The good thing is, politicians can do both. Put out a statement. Book a flight. Stand for something. They don’t have to means-test their own convictions; they just have to act on them. Cases like Abrego Garcia’s don’t show us who is or isn’t a shrewd and effective politician who refuses to get “distracted.” They tell us who is willing to do their job on behalf of the people they represent, and who just wants to make numbers in the next straw poll go up.
I mean, on one hand, good on Gavin Newsom for putting his name on it, unlike all these anonymous quote-laundering consultants, but on the other hand fuck these guys.
I'd say the reason voters might see immigration as an issue where Democrats are "weak" is because the Democrats immigration position typically comes down to copying Republicans. When Harris/Dems brought up immigration during the campaign it was to claim that Harris & Biden are/were tougher on immigration than Trump. It banks on people wanting Trump/Republican's immigration policies but without the insults directed at immigrants