The close relationship between congressional Democrats and immigration advocacy groups has grown strained since last year’s election as lawmakers shift rightward on border issues.
Now those groups are asserting themselves as Republicans prepare to pursue a crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities.
Failing to rally together in opposition to planned GOP legislation, they say, would risk a more profound break between the Democratic Party and its progressive base while threatening resources in communities across the country.
“All the Democrats need to hold together,” said Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU, who called the bill “a real test case” and “one that we have to defeat.”
The test isn’t just about immigration policy; it’s also about the suddenly uneasy relationship between liberal advocates and many in the Democratic Party who blame the progressive positions that those activists espouse for President Donald Trump’s resounding victory last year.
The tensions played out vividly on the Laken Riley Act, a Republican-led bill named after a slain Georgia nursing student that expanded the list of criminal offenses requiring the detention of undocumented immigrants. Advocates warned it would lead to the mass incarceration and potential deportation of migrants who had not been afforded due process.
But 48 House Democrats voted for the bill last month — up significantly from a vote on a similar bill last year — and 12 Democratic senators joined Republicans, allowing the bill to overcome a filibuster. Trump signed the bill on Jan. 29, making it the first major piece of legislation to get his signature in his second term.
“I don’t listen to the ACLU — I listen to my district, how it feels on the ground,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, one of the Democrats who voted for the Laken Riley Act. He represents a district won by Trump.
House Republicans are preparing to call a vote within weeks on the “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act” — legislation that would target jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement priorities. Advocates who want to preserve those cities’ ability to protect undocumented immigrants are pushing Democrats to stand firm against the bill — and avoid a repeat of the mass defections seen on other immigration votes this year.
The upcoming GOP bill would in effect deny a broad range of federal funding to jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security — which is the case for many Democratic-led cities, counties and states. A version of the bill passed the House last year with 12 Democrats joining a united Republican conference.
The immigration groups are concerned that number could grow — and increase pressure on Democratic senators, who have traditionally been a bulwark against hard-line immigration restrictions due to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for breaking a filibuster.
Gonzalez voted no on a version of the bill last year. Asked about this year’s legislation, he said, “I don’t have sanctuary cities in my district, and so I’m probably going to stay out of people’s way.”
House Democratic leaders didn’t formally whip the Laken Riley Act this year, which helped contribute to its increased support in the party. The sanctuary-city bill was whipped by Democrats last Congress, and progressive lawmakers and advocates have pressed for more forceful opposition this time. They believe their colleagues who could be on the fence could be swayed now that Trump’s agenda is playing out in real time.
Democratic leadership expects to whip against the sanctuary city bill when it comes up for a vote, according to a person familiar with the situation. That could help keep defections below what was seen on the Laken Riley Act.
“People had not really had a feel for all the craziness of the executive orders and the actions taken by Elon Musk and his crew to try to break the government, and I think now people have a full sense that what is being proposed here is really about hurting people, and that it’s a great overreach,” said Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.).
But the political considerations for swing-district Democrats haven’t changed all that much: Party leaders privately concede that some purple-district members either have to vote for the legislation or risk a deluge of GOP attack ads come campaign season.
And the larger debate over whether the groups themselves simply have too much influence over the party’s agenda continues to percolate as Democrats continue their post-election reckoning and search for a response to the GOP’s crackdown on immigration.
“Democrats are trying to figure it out. I think we’re getting past the point of blaming — which was unhelpful, but it’s par for the course — but I think we’re getting past that and trying to figure it out,” said Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of Immigration Hub. “I think we’re slowly getting to a better place where Hakeem Jeffries and other leaders are figuring out, yes, we need to have a plan.”
Internally, House Democrats have largely coalesced around a strategy to protect three key groups of undocumented immigrants: Dreamers, or those brought to the U.S. as children as well as farmworkers and families. They have created an internal task force to coordinate their immigration policy efforts while insisting they’re open to a bipartisan conversation on border security.
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), who’s leading the internal working group, said it was meant to bring together a broad cross-section of the caucus to “make sure that we get this right, and that what we hear from our members is what we do.”
Meanwhile, advocacy groups are making a full push to oppose the legislation, with the ACLU holding meetings with lawmakers, sending letters to Congress and holding briefings for federal, state and local government officials.
Lawmakers are still feeling out how to calibrate their relationships with those outside organizations, including some that represent immigrant-heavy communities.
“I pick and choose what positions I take based upon what I believe and what our district believes,” said Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.). “Doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single point of every advocacy group right in order to work with them.”
Soto represents an Orlando-area district that voted for Kamala Harris by fewer than 4 points last year after voting for Joe Biden by more than 17 points in 2020. He voted against the Laken Riley Act but supported another Republican-led bill targeting undocumented immigrants accused of domestic violence.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said he aimed to have a “complementary relationship” with the groups.
“The advocacy groups have a role to play, and we have a role to play,” he said. “I don’t think they’re adversarial. You know, the advocacy groups will push as hard as they can to take us to where they feel is the right position, and we are here in a discussion with the other side of the aisle, and we know how far we can go.”
The groups, meanwhile, are honing their own message in the wake of Trump’s victory. Rather than simply argue against the GOP sanctuary city bill in civil rights terms, for instance, they are casting it was part of a larger Republican effort to defund critical services for constituents while also seeking to directly tie immigration to the pocketbook issues that helped swing the election to Republicans.
“When you have instability and chaos, it’s bad for business,” said Eric Rodriguez, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, a nonpartisan Hispanic civil rights and advocacy group. “So these things are directly related to the economy, which is what the Republican Party said they cared about, and what the president said he cared about.”
By politico