The Immigration Policy Democrats Don't Want to Discuss
Noah Smith's latest piece stands out because it forces a conversation most progressives have been avoiding. While much of the Democratic response to current immigration enforcement focuses on opposing brutality and authoritarian overreach, Smith argues this reactive stance isn't enough. Voters still don't trust Democrats on immigration policy itself — and that's a vulnerability the party can't ignore.
The "Stolen Land" Trap
Smith tackles one of the most contentious rhetorical moves in progressive immigration discourse. The argument that America is "stolen land" — meant to counter blood-and-soil nationalism by delegitimizing the land claims of anti-immigrant voices — fails on three fronts.
Noah Smith writes, "no one cares. Those who are inclined to welcome immigrants will become no more welcoming upon hearing that 'no one is illegal on stolen land'. And those who believe that America is the legitimate owner of its land will not be persuaded to change their beliefs simply by a reminder that the land once belonged to Native Americans."
The deeper problem, he argues, is that this rhetoric signals progressives don't believe America is a legitimate country at all. If Democrats suggest citizens have no right to democratically decide who enters, voters outside progressive circles will reject that framing entirely.
As Noah Smith puts it, "The Democratic Party shouldn't go anywhere near this sort of atavistic moral reasoning." Instead, he urges Democrats to emphasize how immigrants contribute to the United States and the culture that unifies the nation — rhetoric that treats America as a legitimate entity worthy of strengthening.
"The only thing more unpopular than a nakedly authoritarian immigration policy is a Democratic one."
Deport All Illegal Immigrants — But Humanely
Here Smith makes his most controversial claim. Many Democrats focus enforcement on immigrants with criminal records. But polls show Americans object to illegal immigration itself, not just criminal behavior by undocumented people.
Noah Smith writes, "When people cross the border illegally, they may not have hurt anyone, but they have flouted the American people's democratic will."
The solution he proposes: deport all illegal immigrants, but without ICE's current brutality. Two mechanisms could achieve this. First, enforce laws against companies hiring undocumented workers — decimate demand for undocumented labor, and immigrants will leave without detention centers or arrests. Second, close the asylum loophole that allows people who cross illegally to request asylum and remain while awaiting hearings.
As Noah Smith puts it, "if the American people have decreed that a person should not get in, they should not get in."
Critics might note this approach still accepts the premise that illegal border-crossers deserve deportation regardless of circumstances — economic desperation, family ties, or danger in their home countries. The "humane" enforcement framework still centers removal rather than regularization pathways.
Sanctuary Cities and Obama's Record
Smith points to a contradiction in Democratic positioning. Barack Obama deported large numbers of undocumented immigrants during his first term, largely through ICE's Secure Communities Program, which checked immigration status when local police arrested someone.
Noah Smith writes, "if Democrats really do want to deport criminal illegal immigrants en masse, it will require cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE in blue cities."
Yet many progressive cities became "sanctuary cities," limiting cooperation with ICE. Smith argues this undermines Democrats' own stated goal of deporting criminal undocumented immigrants while resisting federal enforcement efforts.
Critics might note that sanctuary policies emerged from documented abuses in immigration enforcement — trust between immigrant communities and local police eroded when local officers became immigration enforcers. The Secure Communities program itself faced widespread criticism for separating families and deporting people with minimal criminal histories.
Bottom Line
Noah Smith's argument forces Democrats into uncomfortable territory: opposing authoritarian enforcement isn't enough without a coherent alternative policy. Voters want border security and legal immigration systems that reflect democratic will — not open borders, not brutal raids. The party's silence on what liberal enforcement actually means leaves Smith's provocative framework filling the void. Whether Democrats embrace his prescription — humane deportation of all undocumented people, ending sanctuary policies, closing asylum loopholes — or reject it as too concessionary, they'll need to answer the question soon.