Voters are rejecting Democratic immigration messaging not because of the policies themselves, but because the party continues to lead with legal process instead of emotional clarity and public safety.
The ongoing struggle within the United States over immigration’s identity and politics highlights a critical messaging battle between the Democratic and Republican parties. This conflict goes beyond policy differences, revealing how the public wrestles with fear, fairness, and national identity.
According to real-time sentiment data from EyesOver, an AI platform that analyzes public opinion across digital platforms, Democrats are struggling to maintain control over the overarching immigration narrative, even in the face of a diverse coalition and significant public support for Dreamers and asylum seekers. Why?
The following analysis is based on multi-week EyesOver AI sentiment tracking, compiled by Campaign Now’s research team as the foundation for this report.
Republicans have refined a blunt but effective formula: anchor immigration in criminal threat, frame enforcement as rescue, and repeat with visuals. Whether it’s President Trump warning that “our country is being invaded,” Speaker Mike Johnson holding press conferences about cartel trafficking routes, or conservative pundits flooding social media with mugshots of undocumented immigrants charged with violent crimes, the messaging is relentless and uniform. And it works.
Democratic views on border issues have plummeted in crucial battleground states such as Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. In Arizona alone, sentiment for House Democrats on border security stood at just 25% in early April and dropped to 24% by the end of the month, reflecting a steep decline across all four states.1 This wasn't an isolated dip; it reflected a wider trend. In these Hispanic-heavy states, House Democrats’ average sentiment on immigration-related topics like “Border Security/Deportations” hovered at a mere 26.5%, further confirming the party’s persistent messaging failure on this issue.2
Image created from data on EyesOver weekly snapshot.
These numbers reflected a deeper trend rather than warning of simple anomalies. Voters consistently respond more positively to immigration framed through the lens of “public safety” than through procedural rights or humanitarian obligation. The GOP has simply mastered the art of narrative shorthand: MS-13 equals danger. Deportation equals action. Sanctuary cities equal chaos. Border wall equals control.
Image of the border wall generated by DALL-E
Crucially, immigration is linked to broader themes of sovereignty and economic nationalism. Republicans don’t just say they want to “protect our border.” Their message promises to protect wages, jobs, schools, and police. It draws a through-line from “illegal immigration” to fentanyl overdoses, budget deficits, and “American decline.” Whether the link is accurate or not matters less than its emotional punch.
Democratic figures like Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Chris Van Hollen have faced significant sentiment losses after championing individual deportation cases or challenging the Trump administration’s aggressive removals. Van Hollen scored just 27% approval on border security issues in April, following his high-profile criticisms of Trump-era deportation policies and a controversial trip to El Salvador.
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Official U.S. Senate portrait, 2017. Public domain.
Similarly, Booker, who also played a leading role in the El Salvador pressure campaign, registered only 24% sentiment on border security during the same period.3 In both cases, voters appeared to interpret these actions as misplaced priorities, prioritizing the welfare of individual deportees over collective security, rather than as principled positions.
By U.S. Senate - Public Domain
Perhaps the most striking example came from Rep. Robert Garcia. Democrats frequently lose the immigration narrative, even when they possess the moral high ground or favorable policies. This is because their approach often feels disconnected from voters' desires for reassurance that someone is in charge, ensuring their safety, and holding the line.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California’s 42nd District. Official U.S. House portrait, 2023. Public domain.
A clear example of this occurred when a politician traveled to El Salvador to advocate for a deported MS-13 member, framing it as a wrongful deportation. This action resulted in a significant loss of support, far outweighing any gains.
Democrats are losing Latino support on immigration in states they used to rely on. In Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas, approval for House Democrats on border security fell to just 24% by the end of April. Even after shifting to a due process message in May, they continued to trail Republicans in every weekly poll.4
The deeper issue is that Democrats are speaking in a language voters do not connect with. While Republicans talk about safety and control, Democrats focus on legal rights and procedural fairness. That may win policy arguments, but it loses elections.
Republicans have kept their message simple and emotional. They focus on removing violent criminals, lowering illegal crossings, and tying immigration to rising costs in public services. That message works, especially with Latino voters who want legal immigration but also want order. In 2024, Hispanic Republicans turned out at higher rates than Hispanic Democrats in Pennsylvania. If Democrats do not rethink how they talk about immigration, they will keep losing the voters they once counted on.
Democratic messaging on immigration continues to miss the mark. The party leans heavily on complex policy and symbolic gestures, like holding hearings for deported individuals or promoting asylum reforms, that fail to resonate with voters.
Post election polling from the Progressive Change Institute found that even small decisions had major consequences. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, enthusiasm among independents dropped by as much as 25 points when Vice President Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney instead of focusing on the economy. A similar pattern is playing out on immigration, where voters do not see Democrats addressing their core concerns.
The Biden administration’s efforts to strike a middle ground have left both sides dissatisfied. Executive actions limiting asylum have drawn criticism from activists, while Republicans portray the measures as weak. Voters are left with mixed signals and little confidence, and many are simply tuning out.
To stop hemorrhaging ground on immigration, Democrats don’t need to abandon their values—but they do need to repackage them.
That means:
To regain ground, Democrats must stop allowing Republicans to define the terms of the debate. They need to speak with conviction, not just compassion. They must frame immigration not only as a moral and legal issue but as one that affects safety, opportunity, and the strength of the nation as a whole. Voters are not waiting for another explanation. They are waiting for leadership that feels real. If Democrats cannot deliver that message, they will continue to lose ground no matter how strong their policy proposals might be.
The immigration debate is not simply a matter of policy details or legislative agendas. It is a broader test of national identity and leadership. Voters are not only asking what the country should do about immigration; they are asking what kind of country this is and who has the strength to lead it through uncertainty. In that contest, Democrats continue to focus on procedure, fairness, and legal process, while Republicans offer a simpler message centered on safety, enforcement, and control. The courtroom versus the shield. Voters have made clear which one they find more reassuring.
This gap in messaging explains more than any single policy position or controversial moment. It cuts to the heart of why Democrats struggle to gain traction on immigration even when their ideas poll well. Voters may agree with pathways to citizenship or improved asylum processing, but if those ideas are presented in a way that feels abstract, complicated, or disconnected from the urgency of everyday concerns, they will not move public opinion. People are looking for clarity, not complexity. They want to feel that someone is in charge and that their community is protected.
Sources
