Democrats have fallen into a narrative trap with Kilmar Abrego Garcia 

Stephen Miller, President Trump’s deputy chief of staff and one of the architects of his immigration policies, is no idiot. He’s the product of one of the country’s best public school systems and a graduate of Duke University. And since at least the ripe age of 16, he has been stewing about America’s immigration policies. 

So, when Miller declared this month that the illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia “is not a ‘Maryland man.’ He is not a ‘Maryland’ anything,” one should assume that his words were deliberate and by design.

Political analysts have suggested that Miller’s comments — since echoed by the vice president, the White House press secretary and others — were primarily focused on drawing Democrats further into a spat about immigration and onto unfavorable political turf, but that’s only half the picture.  

For all the madness of this administration and its actors, they are experts in the execution of the “othering playbook.” At its core, it’s as simple as centering a policy debate on an individual and then relentlessly defining that individual in a way that is politically beneficial. This helps to shift what is often a complicated policy debate to a discussion about an individual’s character and identity. 

In this case, Miller’s words make clear that Garcia isn’t American. That’s true (at least in a narrow definition), and for many that framing opens the door to questions about Garcia and how he is different from the mass of folks who define themselves as American. In this framing, Garcia is now “other” — not just Salvadoran, but thanks to baseless claims of other administration officials, a gang member, a domestic abuser, a deadbeat father and so on. With every claim, Garcia becomes bigger and bigger and the policy of illegally deporting him smaller and smaller.  

If you doubt the power of this person-centric narrative approach, just think of all the laws that have been attached to the story of a person: Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law and the recent Laken Riley Act.   

For Democrats, there is a warning in all of this, and they need to be careful not to fall into the same trap they have repeatedly. 

By fixating on one person, they narrow the argument to that individual and set the stage for value and policy judgements that revolve around the character and circumstances of an individual, as opposed to the broader circumstances. The question becomes not “Do I support ‘accidentally’ deporting folks who are in the U.S. legally?” but “Do I think Garcia deserves to be in the U.S.?” For most, the answer to that latter question is murkier, and it becomes ever more so as the administration paints an increasingly negative (albeit fictional) picture.  

Should Republicans insist on a debate anchored in the individual, then the objective should be to expand the playing field.

For example, why not make this about Trump’s inner circle?  

Melania Trump came to the United States in 1996 on a tourist visa, then obtained a series of H1-B work visas as a model before receiving a green card in 2001. The first lady then, presumably with the president’s blessing, sponsored her parents’ green card applications and they became naturalized U.S. citizens in New York in 2018. 

The vice president’s in-laws also weren’t born in the U.S. Radhakrishna Chilukuri and Lakshmi Chilukuri, second lady Usha Vance’s parents, immigrated from India more than 40 years ago. 

Elsewhere in the administration, FBI Director Kash Patel’s parents first moved from Uganda to Canada in the early 1970s to escape ethnic persecution under Idi Amin, before eventually settling in the U.S.

The list goes on and on, and it includes DOGE czar Elon Musk, who is originally from South Africa but also holds Canadian citizenship.  

Opening the aperture forces everyone to ask the same questions about almost everyone, making the issue more universal to a broader audience identity.  

Science tells us we tend to favor our own social group members over others, and that we see our group as more human. Opponents should therefore be framing this issue so as many people see their own stake in this administration’s illegal actions as possible. For example — because my great grandparents emigrated from Poland via Ellis Island, is my citizenship going to be questioned? What about the status of my mother, born in Germany but now a U.S. passport holder?  

The president’s statements themselves have opened the door to these inquiries. In his meeting with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, Trump said, “we also have homegrown criminals … I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.” 

Given how loosely the president and his administration define who and what is “criminal” and their proven disregard for the law, this is no empty threat — just consider all those who have been swept up already, a majority of whom are neither proven criminals and who have been denied due process.

To come back to Miller and his worldview, it’s fair to ask if Trump’s definition wouldn’t, in Miller’s eyes, include the 12.8 million green card holders living in the U.S. or the 24.5 to 25 million naturalized U.S. citizens. 

Democrats would do well to force questions here — not by failing to defend Garcia or talking about his case, but by expanding the narrative to demonstrate how most Americans are tied in some way to an immigrant experience that is now qualifying folks to be “mistakenly” deported. 

Felix Schein is the founder and president of the advocacy firm RALLY.