The first few weeks of Donald Trumps second presidency have put Democrats in a frustrating bind.Hes thrown so much at them (and at the nation), that theyre having serious trouble figuring out what to respond to let alone how. Hes signed dozens of executive orders; attempted serious power grabs and overhauls of the government; and signed controversial legislation. And in the process, hes further divided his opposition, as the Democrats undergo an identity crisis that ramped up after Kamala Harriss loss.Immigration policy is a prime example of this struggle: Long before Harris became their nominee, the party was debating just how much to adjust to both Trumps anti-immigrant campaign promises and to the American publics general shift away from openness to immigration. Now that hes in office, Democrats arent really lined up to resist every one of the presidents anti-immigrant moves and some are even backing some of his stances.The party is now divided into roughly three camps: those in the Senate and House willing to back Trump on certain tough-on-immigration measures, like the recently passed Laken Riley Act; those who see their constituents supporting some of his positions but are torn over how to vote; and those progressives who are committed to resisting his every move on immigration.Todays public opinion is one main contributor for the divide: Americans are still largely in favor of more restrictionist immigration policy. Democratic losses in November are another contributor, particularly in areas with large immigrant or nonwhite populations.But lawmakers are also confronting longer-standing historical dynamics that have divided the working class and immigrants before. Newer and undocumented immigrants can appear to pose both economic competition and threats to existing senses of identity for immigrants who have already resided in the US, or to those who have assimilated and raised new generations. Combined with a resurgent Republican Party that has capitalized on some of these feelings, these facts might be complicating the Democratic response to Trump now.Working class and immigrant divides arent newOn the campaign trail last year, Trump and various other Republican politicians repeated a specific line of reasoning when making a pitch to nonwhite voters: The border invasion that Joe Biden and Harris were supposedly responsible for was crushing the jobs and wages of Black, Latino, and union workers. Trump called it economic warfare.This line of reasoning that immigrants are taking away economic opportunities from those already in the US has historically been a source of tension for both native-born Americans, and older immigrants.Much of the economics behind this has been challenged by economists, but the politics are still effective. The main claim here is that an influx in cheaper low-skilled laborers not only pushes down the cost of goods but negatively impacts preexisting American workers by lowering their wages as well. The evidence for this actually happening, however, is thin: Immigrants also create demand, by buying new items and using new services, therefore creating more jobs. Still, the idea remains popular.Even as far back as the civil rights era, this thinking created divisions among left-wing activist movements trying to secure better labor conditions and legal protections. Take the case of the most iconic figure of the Latino labor movement, Csar Chvez, himself of Mexican descent. As his movement to secure better conditions for farmworkers faced challenges from nonunion, immigrant workers who could help corporate bosses break or alleviate the pressures of labor strikes, his efforts on immigration took a more radical turn.Chvezs United Farm Workers even launched an Illegals Campaign in the 1970s an attempt to rally public opposition to immigration and get government officials to crack down on illegal crossings. The UFW even subsidized vigilante patrol efforts along the southern border to try to enforce immigration restrictions when they thought the government wasnt doing enough, and Chvez publicly accused the federal agency in charge of the border and immigration at the time of abdicating their duty to arrest undocumented immigrants who crossed the border.Of course, Chvezs views were nuanced and primarily rooted in the goal of creating and strengthening a union that could represent and advocate for farmworkers and laborers left out of the labor movements earlier in the 19th and 20th centuries. But they are great examples of the deep roots that economic and identity status threats have in complicating the views of working-class and nonwhite people in the not-too-distant past.This specific opinion has stuck around. Gallup polling since the early 1990s has found that for most of the last 30 years, Americans have tended to hold the opinion that immigration mostly hurts the economy by driving wages down for many Americans. And swings in immigration sentiment tend to align with how Americans feel about the state and health of the national economy: When economic opportunity feels scarce, as during the post-pandemic inflationary period, Americans tend to pull back from more generous feelings around both legal and illegal immigration. Democrats also face the challenge of anti-immigrant immigrantsWhat makes this era of immigration politics perhaps a bit more complicated on top of those existing economic reasons is the added concerns over fairness and orderliness that many nonwhite Americans, and even immigrants from previous generations, feel.US Rep. Juan Vargas, a progressive Democrat who represents San Diego and the part of California that borders Mexico, told me that theres a sense among some of his constituents that recent immigrants, both legal and not, are cutting the line. This feeling about newcomers not paying their dues is, again, a longstanding sentiment among immigrant groups across American history, but it appears updated for the post-pandemic era. While older immigrants feel they have worked hard and waited their turn, they feel newer ones have taken advantage of the asylum system, or gone through less of a struggle than they have.Vargas told me about a conversation he had with a constituent in his district who told him she disagrees with his stance on immigration policy, even though she once came across illegally too and lived in the US for 15 years without documentation.I started talking to her, and she said, You know, these new immigrants, they get everything. They get here and they get everything. We didnt get anything, and so I think they should all be deported, Vargas said. I said, Oh, so, because you were given a chance, you dont think other people should get that same chance? She goes, Well, its different. Really, in what way? How is it different? And she didnt have a very good answer.Some immigration researchers describe this as part of a law-and-order mindset: folding border enforcement and immigration crackdowns with a renewed desire by the public for tough-on-crime policies in the post-pandemic era. Last year, the political scientist Matthew Wright described to me this segment of Americans, many of them nonwhite or descended from immigrants. They feel, he said, conflicting emotions about order at the southern border, disorder in how the government is managing it, and how their own communities could be put at risk for a breakdown in the system. They conflate feelings of insecurity and crime with the state of immigration, and come to believe that a broken system is benefitting some while allowing bad apples to slip between the cracks. These views help explain why theres a vocal group of Democrats, including Latino Democrats, willing to work with Trump and Republicans specifically on immigration reforms that take a tough-on-crime approach, like the Laken Riley Act, which expedites deportation for undocumented immigrants charged with certain crimes.Some 46 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats ended up voting for the Laken Riley Act, including perhaps the most vocal pro-enforcement Latino Democrat, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona. He argued that the bill represented where the Latino mainstream is now on immigration. People are worried about border security, but they also want some sane pathway to immigration reform. Thats who I represent. I really represent the middle view of Arizona, which is largely working class and Latino, Gallego said after the vote.Even some Democrats in solid blue areas of the country agree, to an extent. Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner, who represents Houston and was an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights during Trumps first presidency, told me that his constituents back tougher immigration policies, particularly when it comes to undocumented immigrants charged with violent crimes. He himself didnt vote for the Laken Riley Act because he disagreed with the bills application to those merely charged or accused of a crime (as opposed to those convicted), but he said that he feels the publics mandate to support other kinds of proposals.People want the border secure, he told me. People dont want persons who have committed serious, violent crimes in this country. Im not opposed to [Trump] securing the border, and Im not opposed to him deporting individuals who have committed serious crimes.What Democrats can agree onAll these divides in how Democrats are responding to Trump leave the party appearing less united than they might want to be, but it reflects where the public is. Theyre generally okay with bold statements about reducing both legal and illegal immigration, they want something done about the border, but they dont necessarily want Dreamers who were brought illegally to the US as children, or their undocumented neighbors deported.None of the Democratic representatives Ive spoken to since Trumps victory think the party should be abandoning the defense of immigration as value, but they understand theyll need to be strategic in what they respond to because their constituents are divided too.Theyll fight back against Trump when he tries to undue birthright citizenship, for example, but they wont necessarily criticize the continued construction of a border wall with Mexico, or increased deportations. Theyll point out that deportation flights using military aircraft are mostly for show, while standard ICE-chartered planes can do the job for less. Many supported the bipartisan border bill that Biden tried to pass a little less than a year ago, for example, and would theoretically support it again.They oppose the idea of mass deportations, but because they think the public actually wants more targeted deportations, and even poke fun at the inefficiency of some deportations under Trumps new guidelines, as Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy did recently. And they see room to defend DREAMers, DACA recipients, and those who have benefitted from asylum protections, like temporary protected status, because they see moral value in it, and political value as well: many of those categories of immigrants are popular with Republicans, and polling backs up these nuances.If you start talking about deporting the DREAMers in this country who have gone through our schools, graduated from our universities, and now can contribute back to this society, if youre talking about deporting them, thats going to be an issue, Turner said. Theres going to be opposition if you talk about deporting children, or going into churches and schools and hospitals, and harassing our kids. But if you want to bring back the bill the Republicans and Democrats were prepared to sign last year, I think you will find support there.These nuances over immigration policy specifically, therefore, encapsulate a bit of an overarching question Democrats are continuing to grapple with: how to resist and oppose a president who has some public support for policies they might not individually favor. So far, theyre picking and choosing their battles. But public opinion wont stay static forever, and the opposition will have to evolve with it.See More: