Immigration and Border Security

Numerous voices from both sides of the aisle have called for immigration reform in light of:  

  • a continuous flow of immigrants crossing the border illegally, many who are coming to the US for work in large part due to the demand for migrant workers in the US
  • the approximately 11 million immigrants who have been living in the US without legal status, most for over a decade
  • a continuous flow of asylum seekers, primarily from Central America, that have created a several-year backlog of pending cases

INCREASE BORDER SECURITY TO REDUCE ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Increase the number of Border Patrol officers from 20,000 to 22,000, and provide them more funding for surveillance technology at the border.”

A bipartisan majority of 70% were in favor, including 74% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, but a smaller majority of independents (57%).

Demographics

More Details:

Briefing
Respondents were introduced to the topic of border security, as follows:

Nearly half of the southern border currently has a barrier to prevent people from entering the US in places other than official entry-ways. 

The US Border Patrol also has many agents posted near the border, as well as surveillance cameras along the border, to catch people who have entered illegally. 

In 2023, Border Patrol detained about 2 million people near the border who could not prove that they were legally allowed to be in the US. The government estimates that another 860,000 were able to escape detection by Border Patrol and enter the interior of the U.S.

They were then presented the following proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol officers, along with information about the Border Patrol:

One proposal to reduce illegal crossings and catch more people who enter illegally is to increase the number of Border Patrol officers, from 20,000 to 22,000, and provide them more funding for surveillance technology at the border.

As you may know, Border Patrol polices the borders of the US to detect and detain people crossing the border illegally, including people trafficking drugs or humans.

Border Patrol has greater authority than other law enforcement: They do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct searches of people within 100 miles of the border to determine if they are in the US legally or not. Within 25 miles of the border, they can conduct searches of private property, such as cars, without a warrant.

Arguments
The argument in favor did very well, with a large bipartisan majority of 78% finding it convincing (Republicans 80%, Democrats 80%). The argument against did not do so well, with a small majority of 55% finding it convincing, including a majority of Democrats (63%) but just under half of Republicans (48%).

Final Recommendation
Respondents were then presented the final proposal:

Increase the number of Border Patrol officers from 20,000 to 22,000, and provide them more funding for surveillance technology at the border.

A bipartisan majority of 70% were in favor, including 74% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, but a much smaller majority of independents (57%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, the proposal was favored by 71-77%, including 77-82% of Republicans and 65-79% of Democrats.

Related Standard Polls

Bipartisan majorities have favored hiring more Border Patrol agents:

  • Asked whether they favor, “Hiring significantly more border patrol agents,” a bipartisan majority of 76% were in favor (Republicans 95%, Democrats 70%), nearly identical to the 75% support in 2020. (Gallup, June 2024)
  • Asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Hire more border patrol agents,” a bipartisan majority of 64% were in favor (Republicans 79%, Democrats 54%). (APNORC, March 2024)

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Build more barriers along the southern border, primarily walls, and upgrade existing fences to be walls. It is estimated that this would cost around $25 billion.”

A majority of 55% favored the proposal, including 72% of Republicans. Among Democrats, just 43% were in favor, but when asked how acceptable it is on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 57% found it at least tolerable (5-10, with 5 being just tolerable).

More Details:

Briefing
Respondents were introduced to the topic of border barriers, as follows:

Another proposal to try to reduce the number of people entering the US illegally is to build more walls along the US southern border with Mexico.

This border is 1,950 miles long. Currently, about 40% of the border has a fence or wall. Over the last several years, 80 miles of new walls were built where no barriers existed, and about 400 miles of fences were upgraded to be walls.

Most of the areas along the border that do not have a barrier have mountains, large rivers or deserts. These areas often have surveillance towers to detect people crossing.

They were then presented the proposal, as follows:

The question we would like you to evaluate is whether the US should build more barriers along the southern border, primarily walls, and upgrade existing fences to be walls. It is estimated that this would cost around $25 billion.

Arguments
The arguments in favor and against were both found convincing by bipartisan majorities, of 66% and 68%, respectively. Among Democrats, fewer found the pro argument convincing than the con argument (56% to 81%), while the reverse was true among Republicans (pro 79%, con 57%).

Final Recommendation
Respondents were then presented the final proposal:

Build more barriers along the southern border, primarily walls, and upgrade existing fences to be walls. It is estimated that this would cost around $25 billion.

A majority of 55% favored the proposal, including 72% of Republicans, but just 43% of Democrats and 45% of independents.

Respondents were also asked how acceptable the proposal is on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable. A bipartisan majority of 69% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 83% of Republicans, 57% of Democrats, and 66% of independents.

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, the proposal was favored by majorities of 57-64%, including majorities of Republicans (76-83%). Among Democrats, a majority was in favor in Georgia (54%), they were divided in Nevada (48% to 51% opposed), and majorities were opposed in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (53-57% opposed).

However, in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, majorities of 54-61% found the proposal at least tolerable.

Past PPC Survey
An October 2018 survey by PPC found just 39% in favor of, “the government spending $25 billion to build a stronger barrier along the US southern border with Mexico, primarily by building a wall,” including just 13% of Democrats and 28% of independents, but a majority of Republicans (74%).

Support for building more walls along the southern border has increased substantially since 2018, primarily among Democrats, by an overwhelming 30 percentage points, and among independents by 17 points. Republican support has remained statistically unchanged (74% in 2018 and 72% in 2024).

Related Standard Polls

Standard polling has found increasing support for building a wall, or building more wall along the southern border, with current support at a modest majority.

In 2024:

  • Asked whether they favor, “Building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico,” 51% were in favor and 46% opposed. A majority of Republicans were in favor (88%), as were a bare majority of independents (51%), but just 21% of Democrats. (PRRI, September 2024)  
  • Asked whether they favor, “expanding the 700 miles of border wall and fencing with Mexico to reduce illegal immigration into the United States,” a majority of 55% were in favor, including a majority of Republicans (89%) and bare majority of independents (53%), but just 26% of Democrats. (CCGA, July 2024)
  • Asked whether they favor, “Building a wall or fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border,” 50% were in support and 37% opposed, with 11% choosing “don’t know”. (partisan breakouts not provided) (Ipsos, May 2024)
  • Asked whether they favor, “each of the following policy ideas related to immigration and border security along the U.S.-Mexico border: Build a wall,” 42% were in favor, 37% opposed, and 20% chose neither favor or oppose. A majority of Republicans were in favor (77%), but just 12% of Democrats and 40% of independents. (APNORC, March 2024)
  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico,” a small majority of 53% were in favor. A majority of Republicans and independents were in favor (86% and 58%, respectively). A majority of Democrats were opposed (83%). (Monmouth University, February 2024)

In 2023:

  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the border with Mexico,” a bare majority of 52% were in support. A majority of Republicans were in favor (91%). A bare majority of independents were in favor (51% to 46% opposed). A majority of Democrats were opposed (78%). (Quinnipiac, October 2023)

In 2021:

  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the border with Mexico,” 45% were in support and 49% opposed. A majority of Democrats were opposed (87%). A majority of Republicans were in favor (91%). Independents were divided (47-48%). (Quinnipiac, October 2021)

In 2019:

  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico,” just 42% were in favor and 56% opposed. A majority of Democrats and independents were opposed (87% and 55%, respectively). A majority of Republicans were in favor (79%). (Monmouth University, March 2019)
  • In 2019, asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the border with Mexico,” just 41% were in support and 55% opposed. A majority of Democrats and independents were opposed (89% and 60%, respectively). A majority of Republicans were in favor (85%). (Quinnipiac, March 2019)
  • In 2019, asked whether they favor, “substantially expanding the wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico,” just 40% were in favor and 58% opposed. A majority of Democrats were opposed (93%). A majority of Republicans were in favor (82%). (Pew, January 2019)

In 2017:

  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico,” just 35% were in favor and 60% opposed. Majorities of Democrats and independents were opposed (87% and 59%, respectively). A majority of Republicans were in favor (65%). (Monmouth University, September 2017)
  • Asked whether they favor, “building a wall along the entire border with Mexico,” 35% were in favor and 62% opposed. A majority of Democrats were opposed (89%). A majority of Republicans were in favor (74%). (Pew, February 2017)

DEALING WITH ILLEGAL MIGRANT WORKERS

Many of the immigrants entering the US illegally are doing so to work in the US. Thus, deterring the number of illegal border crossings relies in large part on reducing the ability of immigrants to work in the US illegally, and the incentives for US employers to hire them.

One proposal to address that issue is to require employers to verify the legal status of their workers, using the E-Verify system, and impose stricter penalties on those who fail to comply.

However, critics of mandatory E-Verify point to the negative effects on the economy of reducing the migrant workforce, since several US industries currently rely on them.

Another proposal to reduce illegal border crossings by migrant workers is to increase the number of legal work visas, under the assumption that this would channel illegal migrant workers into legal pathways.

Comprehensive immigration reform bills – such as the famous bipartisan 2013 legislation which nearly passed – combined these two proposals as a way of reducing the number of illegal workers while keeping the size of the labor force the same.

The public supports that approach. While both proposals, on their own, have bipartisan majority support among the public, when put together as a package support is substantially more robust.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Require employers, when hiring new employees, to use a government system–called E-Verify–to verify that the applicant has the legal right to work in the US,” a bipartisan majority of 68% were in favor, including 64% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats.

Demographics

More Details:

Briefing
Respondents were first provided a briefing on illegal immigration:

As you probably know there is much discussion of people illegally crossing the southern border. During the Covid pandemic the number reached record highs of over 200,000 a month. It has since come down to about 60,000 a month, closer to where it was before the pandemic.

Many of the people entering illegally are doing so because they want to work here, and because they know there are businesses that will hire them. Such businesses seek undocumented workers for temporary, often seasonal work, such as in farming, construction, hotels or amusement parks. 

Undocumented workers make up about ten to fifteen percent of these industries. In most cases, the employers that hire these undocumented workers are aware that they aren’t here legally. In some cases, the employer does not know they are hiring someone illegally, because the person has false documents. 

Currently, the demand for workers is quite high so many businesses are eager to hire workers, whether or not they are documented, and it is anticipated that this will be the case for some time.

Respondents then evaluated a proposal for reducing the number of people coming to the US illegally to work, by increasing the number of work visas. [see above section]

Then, they were then introduced to the proposal for requiring employers to verify the legal status of new hires:

Here is another proposal aimed at reducing the number of people coming to the US illegally for work: 

Require employers, when hiring new employees, to use a government system–called E-Verify–to verify that the applicant has the legal right to work in the US. Here is how this would work: 

The employer would be required, when they want to hire somebody, to go to an existing government website, called E-Verify, where they can verify that the person can legally work in the US. Employers who do not verify the legal status of the people they hire and are found to have hired undocumented immigrants will be fined. With repeated violations they may also lose their business license.

Arguments
Two pairs of arguments for and against the proposal were evaluated. The pro arguments were consistently found convincing by a larger percentage than the con arguments, overall and among both Republicans and Democrats.

Final Recommendation
Respondents were then presented the final proposal:

Require employers, when hiring new employees, to use a government system – called E-Verify – to verify that the applicant has the legal right to work in the US.

A bipartisan majority of 68% were in favor, including 64% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats.

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, the proposal was favored by bipartisan majorities of 67-73%, including 66-77% of Republicans and 71-78% of Democrats.

Results from Past PPC Survey
An October 2018 survey by PPC found 72% in favor of requiring employers to use E-Verify, including 83% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats. 

Interestingly, from 2018 to 2024, support for mandatory E-Verify decreased among Republicans by 19 percentage points (83% to 64%), while it increased among Democrats by eight points (66% to 74%).

The specific proposal presented in 2018 varied slightly from the proposal in the 2024 survey, in two ways. The 2018 proposal required employers to verify the legal status of new hires and current employees, while the 2024 proposal only required the verification of new hires. Also, there are differences in what the punishment would be for employers who fail to comply. The 2018 proposal would punish employers with prison time or a revocation of their business license, while the 2024 proposal would punish non-compliant employers with fines or license revocation. 

Results of DDL Survey
A deliberative poll done in 2019 by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy asked respondents whether they favor a proposal to, “Require employers to use the E-verify computer system to confirm workers' eligibility.”  A bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor, including 84% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats.

Related Standard Polls
Bipartisan majorities have supported mandating employers to check the legal status of their new employees:

  • Asked whether they favor requiring “businesses to verify the immigration status of new hires,” a large majority of 75% favored requiring “businesses to verify the immigration status of new hires,” with just 6% opposed. Partisan breakouts were not available. (September 2015, Bloomberg)
  • Asked whether they support “requiring all businesses to check on the immigration status of potential employees,” 83% were in support, including 92% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats. (April 2013, ABC/Washington Post)

Status of Legislation
The proposal to require all employers to use E-Verify to ensure their employees are legally able to work in the US, and face penalties if they fail to use it, has been in numerous pieces of legislation since 2010, none of which have made it out of committee. It was also in the larger immigration reform bill Securing America’s Future Act of 2018 (H.R. 4760), sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) in the 115th Congress, which failed in the House with all Democrats and 40 Republicans voting against it.

This proposal has been introduced in numerous bills since then. Currently, the most sponsored bills that include this proposal, in the 118th Congress, are:

  • DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act by Rep. Maria Salazar (H.R. 3599)
  • Secure the Border Act by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (H.R. 2) and Sen. Ted Cruz (S. 2824)

These bills have yet to make it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were presented the following proposal:

The Federal government providing enough work visas for migrant workers to meet the demand from employers for such workers. In the current environment this would mean substantially increasing the number of work visas. If the demand for workers in the US goes down, the number of work visas available would be reduced.

A majority of 67% favored the proposal, including a bare majority of Republicans (53%) and a very large majority of Democrats (84%).

Asked how acceptable they find the proposal on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable, a bipartisan majority of 78% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 63% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats and 75% of independents.

Demographics

More Details:

Briefing
Respondents were first provided a briefing on illegal immigration:

As you probably know there is much discussion of people illegally crossing the southern border. During the Covid pandemic, the number reached record highs of over 200,000 a month. It has since come down to about 60,000 a month, closer to where it was before the pandemic.

Many of the people entering illegally are doing so because they want to work here, and because they know there are businesses that will hire them. Such businesses seek undocumented workers for temporary, often seasonal work, such as in farming, construction, hotels or amusement parks. 

Undocumented workers make up about ten to fifteen percent of these industries. In most cases, the employers that hire these undocumented workers are aware that they aren’t here legally. In some cases, the employer does not know they are hiring someone illegally, because the person has false documents. 

Currently, the demand for workers is quite high so many businesses are eager to hire workers, whether or not they are documented, and it is anticipated that this will be the case for some time.

They were then introduced to the proposal for dealing with this issue by increasing the number of work visas:

One proposal for reducing the number of people coming into the US illegally to work, is for the government to greatly increase the number of work visas. Currently, the number of work visas that are made available every year is limited, and can only be increased by Congress.

Here is how these visas work: Immigrants can only receive a work visa if there is a US employer that has agreed to employ them. In order for an employer to legally hire immigrant workers, they must meet two requirements:

  • They must have tried to hire American workers first, but found that there are not enough to fill the positions
  • They must pay immigrant workers the same wages they would pay Americans.

The Department of Labor is in charge of ensuring these requirements are met. Work visas allow immigrants to work in the country for about a year, but their employer can apply to have the visa extended for another couple years if the worker wants that.

While they are in the US, immigrants with work visas are not allowed to collect any federal benefits, but they do pay federal, state and local taxes.

Respondents were then presented the specific proposal:

In Congress, a proposal has been put forward for the Federal government to provide enough work visas for migrant workers to meet the demand from employers for such workers. In the current environment this would mean substantially increasing the number of work visas. If the demand for workers in the US goes down, the number of work visas available would be reduced.

Arguments
The arguments in favor of the proposal were found convincing by larger majorities than those against, but all of them were found convincing by bipartisan majorities. More Democrats found the pro arguments convincing (81-86%) than they did the con arguments (53-60%); and the reverse was true among Republicans (pro arguments 59-65%, con arguments 71-72%).

Final Recommendation
They were then presented the following proposal:

The Federal government providing enough work visas for migrant workers to meet the demand from employers for such workers. In the current environment this would mean substantially increasing the number of work visas. If the demand for workers in the US goes down, the number of work visas available would be reduced.

A majority of 67% favored the proposal, including 53% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats.

Asked how acceptable they find the proposal on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable, a bipartisan majority of 91% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 70% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats.

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, majorities of 65-71% were in favor, including majorities of Democrats (79-84%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin (58-64%), and half are in support in Michigan and Pennsylvania (51% in each state).

Results from past PPC Survey
In an October 2018 survey by PPC, a proposal to increase visas for non-agricultural seasonal labor was favored by a bipartisan majority of 69% (Republicans 73%, Democrats 67%). 

The proposal was presented as follows.

Currently, there is a proposal in Congress to enable the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security to provide substantially more of these H-2B visas.  In the current labor market this would likely increase the number of workers with such visas to about 200,000 and in future years could go higher.  If the labor market were to change and more Americans were to want those jobs, the number would go down.

This proposal calls for increasing the number of people that are provided green cards as part of a program that requires that applicants have skills which employers in the US labor market seek. This includes immigrants who are skilled workers, professionals, executives, and people with exceptional abilities in various fields. In most cases, applicants already have job offers in the US and the employers act as the sponsors.

Results from Deliberative Democracy Lab
A 2019 deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab asked respondents about a proposal to, “Increase the number of visas for low-skilled workers so enough workers can be hired for American industries that need them, like agriculture and service.” A bipartisan majority of 77% favored the proposal, including 66% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats.

Status of Proposal
The proposal to match the number of visas for migrant workers to the demand for such workers by US employers wass in the Closing the Workforce Gap Act of 2024, by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (H.R. 7574) in the 118th Congress.

Similar proposals for increasing the number of migrant work visas have been put forward in the 118th Congress:

  • DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act by Rep. Maria Salazar (H.R. 3599)
  • H-2 Improvements to Relieve Employers by Rep. Tony Gonzales (H.R. 4708)
  • Essential Workers for Economic Advancement Act by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (H.R. 3734)
  • The bipartisan immigration bill put forward in the Senate (Outlined here by the Biden administration)

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents who favored increasing the number of migrant work visas and opposed mandatory E-Verify, or vice versa, were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package, as follows:

  • Require employers to verify that all new hires have the legal right to work in the US.

AND

  • Provide enough work visas to meet US employers’ demand for migrant workers.

Combining those who favored that package, with those who favored each proposal on its own, there is bipartisan majority support for both proposals of 74%, including 67% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats.

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, support for both proposals is 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

After evaluating the proposal to provide enough work visas to meet demand, they were presented a proposal to increase the number of visas specifically for high-skilled workers:

provide enough high-skill work visas for immigrant workers to meet the demand from employers for such workers. In the current environment this would mean substantially increasing the number of these work visas. If the demand for these workers in the US goes down, the number of work visas available would be reduced.

A majority of 63% were in favor, including 52% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats.

Asked how acceptable they find the proposal on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable and 10 very acceptable, a bipartisan majority of 78% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 64% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats.

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, the proposal was favored by majorities of 63-68%, including majorities of Democrats (74-79%). Among Republicans, majorities were in favor in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada (55-61%), and they were statistically divided in Pennsylvania (49%) and Wisconsin (51%).

However, among Republicans in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a majority found the proposal at least tolerable: 67% and 70%, respectively.

Results from Past PPC Survey
An October 2018 survey by PPC asked respondents about the following proposal to increase the number of visas for workers with skills needed in the US, and investors who create jobs:

increasing the number of green cards provided to immigrants who are selected because:

  • the Department of Labor has certified that there is a need for their skill in the US economy and that hiring them will not have a negative effect on the wages for American workers
  • they are investors that will invest at least $500,000 in the US and create at least 10 jobs

A majority 54% were in favor, including a majority of Democrats (63%). Among Republicans, just 46% were in favor, but when asked how acceptable it is on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 53% found it at least tolerable (5-10, with 5 being just tolerable).

Results from Deliberative Democracy Lab
A 2019 deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab asked respondents about a proposal to, “Increase the number of visas for skilled workers to move to the US.” A bipartisan majority of 80% favored the proposal, including 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats.

Related Standard Polls
Standard polls have found a very large majority in favor of more high-skilled immigration:

  • Asked whether they would support, “The U.S. encouraging highly skilled people to immigrate and work in the U.S.,” 78% were in support (partisan breakouts not available.) (Pew, Spring 2018)

DEALING WITH IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT LEGAL STATUS

The population of undocumented immigrants living in the US has stayed at around 11 million for the last decade. Most of these people have been in the US for over twelve years, most have jobs and pay taxes, and many have spouses who are legal residents or children who were born here.

Two approaches have been put forward to address this population. The first is to substantially ramp-up efforts to identify, detain and deport undocumented immigrants with the goal of deporting all 11 million. The other is to offer them a long-term visa and a path to citizenship, provided they have been in the US for some years, have not committed any serious crime, and pay a penalty and any back-taxes they owe.

The public sees merit in both approaches. However, when asked to choose between the two, the path to citizenship is the preferred solution by two-to-one, and is more popular among both Democrats and Republicans.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

To address the millions of long term undocumented immigrants in the US, respondents were asked to choose between a long-term visa with a path to citizenship, a program of mass deportation, or neither. (See details of each proposal below.)

A bipartisan majority of 73% did not choose mass deportation – instead choosing a visa with a path to citizenship or neither – including 58% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats.

The path to citizenship option was preferred by a majority of 58%, including a majority of Democrats (75%). Among Republicans, more chose the path to citizenship option than the mass deportation option (45% vs 40%).

In a 2019 PPC survey respondents were asked to evaluate the same visa with a path to citizenship proposal as above, but as a stand-alone proposal. A bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor, including 55% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats. 

Demographics

More Details:

Briefing

Respondents were first informed about the population of undocumented immigrants living in the US, and the efforts currently taken to find and deport them:

Now let’s turn to the subject of what to do about people who have illegally crossed the border or who have overstayed their visas. Even if people are prevented from coming to the US illegally, or the rate of them coming slows down, there will still be millions of undocumented people in the US.

Currently, Federal agencies actively work to remove several hundred thousand undocumented immigrants from the US each year. The priorities in this effort are to:

  • capture people near the border who have recently crossed over and to deport them
  • deport people who have committed a crime, who are drug traffickers, or who pose a national security threat

Federal agencies also conduct limited numbers of raids of places believed to have large numbers of undocumented immigrants, often workplaces. Certain places are legally protected from raids: schools, hospitals and churches.

This still leaves about 11 million immigrants living in the US without legal status –or about 3% of the US population. While the number of undocumented people increased in the 1990s, it started decreasing around 2005 and has remained about the same for the last decade.

Most of these people have been here for some years–about 8 million have been here over 12 years. Most are part of households where another member, often their spouse, is a US citizen or legal resident. Many have children that are US citizens since they were born in the US. And most are employed and pay taxes.

So, the question is what to do about these immigrants who have lived in the US without legal status for some years.

They then evaluated two proposals for dealing with these undocumented immigrants:

  • Offering a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been here for some years, not committed a serious crime, and pay a penalty and back-taxes
  • Undertake a program of mass deportation, involving mass raids, building large detention facilities, and the use of local law enforcement and possibly the National Guard or military

Evaluating a Path to Citizenship
Respondents were presented the proposal for a path to citizenship, as follows:

A proposal has been put forward to create a new type of long-term visa for immigrants who have been living in the US for some years without legal status.

Here are the basic elements:

Immigrants without legal status could apply for a new type of visa, if they:

  • have been in the US for some years
  • have not committed a serious crime
  • pay a penalty and any back taxes they owe

This new type of visa would:

  • allow them to live and work in the country legally
  • require they pay current taxes

If they are accepted for this visa, they would eventually be allowed to apply for citizenship after several years, but they would have to go to the back of the line, like anyone who applies for citizenship.

People who do not qualify for this new visa would be subject to deportation.

The argument in favor was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of 73%, including 64% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. The argument against was found convincing by 62%, including 72% of Republicans, but just a modest majority of Democrats (53%).

They then evaluated the proposal for a path to citizenship on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable. A bipartisan majority of 64% found it acceptable (6-10), including 57% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats.

Evaluating Mass Deportation
Respondents then evaluated a proposal to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants in the US by undertaking a program of mass deportation, which was described as follows:

Undertake a program of mass deportation throughout the country, with the goal of deporting most or all of the several million people who have been living in the US without legal status for some years. This would entail:

  • Conducting raids on a much larger scale throughout the country to detain people suspected of being undocumented immigrants.
  • Allowing raids to be conducted in places that are currently protected, including schools, hospitals and churches
  • Hiring many more immigration officials
  • If states agree, using local law enforcement and the National Guard to aid in this effort
  • Possibly using the military

To detain millions of people suspected of being in the country illegally would require building a substantial number of large-scale detention centers to hold them while they are being processed.

It is estimated that finding, detaining, and deporting most or all undocumented people would cost $100 billion or more, but exact figures are not known.

The arguments in favor were found convincing by 60-68% overall, including large majorities of Republicans (71-80%), but fewer Democrats (50-59%). The arguments against were found convincing by 68-70% overall, including majorities of Republicans (56-63%), and large majorities of Democrats (81-83%)

Asked how acceptable the proposal is to them on the 0-10 scale, just 50% said acceptable (5-10), including a majority of Republicans (60%), but less than half of Democrats (44%).

Final Recommendation
Finally, respondents were asked to choose between the two options, or do neither, as follows:

Option 1: Create a new type of visa that would be available to undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US for some years and have not committed a serious crime. They would pay a penalty, and any taxes they owe. After several years, they would be allowed to apply for citizenship. Those who do not apply or qualify for the visa would be subject to deportation.

Option 2: Undertake a program of mass deportation throughout the country, with the goal of finding, detaining and deporting most or all of the 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status. States would be asked to use their local law enforcement or National Guard, and the Federal government may use the military. Large facilities would be built to hold people who have been detained. The cost would be $100 billion or more.

Option 3: Neither

The visa with a path to citizenship option was preferred by a majority of 58%, including a majority of Democrats (75%). Among Republicans, more chose the visa with a path to citizenship option than the mass deportation option (45% vs 40%).

Mass deportation was preferred by just 26%, including just 40% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats. The rest chose neither option.

This means a bipartisan majority of 73% did not choose mass deportation – instead choosing a visa with a path to citizenship or neither – including 58% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats.

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. In every swing state, a bipartisan majority did not choose mass deportation (69-75%), including majorities of Republicans (56-64%) and Democrats (78-86%).

The path to citizenship option was preferred by overall majorities in every swing state (55-65%), including majorities of Democrats (67-77%). Among Republicans in five of the six swing states a path to citizenship was preferred over mass deportation: majorities preferred a path to citizenship in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin, (51-55%), as well as a plurality in Michigan (50% vs 38%). Republicans were statistically divided in Georgia (47% vs 40%) and evenly divided in Pennsylvania (42% vs 42%).

Related Standard Polls

Polling on what to do with undocumented immigrants living in the US has found seemingly contradictory results. When mass deportation is presented as a stand-alone option it has found modest majority or plurality support. When a path to legal residency or citizenship is presented as a stand-alone option, polls have found larger majorities in support.

When people are given both options and asked which they prefer – which more accurately reflects the reality of the policy landscape – majorities consistently prefer the path to citizenship option by a large margin. 

However, unlike in the PPC survey, recent standard polls have found majorities of Republicans prefer mass deportation over a path to citizenship. That difference is likely explained by the fact that those polls do not describe mass deportation in any detail, whereas the PPC survey does.

Standard Polling: Choosing between offering legal status with path to citizenship together with and mass deportation

Given the opportunity to choose between deportation and a legal status with a path to legal residency or citizenship, majorities have preferred offering undocumented immigrants a way to stay in the US legally. Up until around 2022, a majority of Republicans have preferred that option rather than deportation.

  • In 2024 respondents were asked, “Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally,” and given three options:
    • “Allow them a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements” was chosen by a majority of 56%, including 77% of Democrats, 55% of independents, but just 36% of Republicans
    • “Allow them to become permanent legal residents, but not citizens” was chosen by 11%.
    • “Identify and deport them” was chosen by 31%. (PRRI, September 2024)

Overall, a large majority of 67% preferred giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship or permanent legal residency, rather than mass deportation.

  • In 2024, asked to choose what the “government’s top priority” should be, “in dealing with immigrants already living in the U.S. illegally”:
    • “Developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents,” was chosen by 67%, including 90% of Democrats and 66% of independents, but just 48% of Republicans
    • “Deporting all people living in the U.S. illegally” was chosen by just 33%, including just 10% of Democrats and 34% of independents, but 52% of Republicans (SSRS/CNN, October 2024)
  • In 2019, in response to the same question, support for a path to legal residency was higher at 80% support, including majorities of Republicans (63%), as well as Democrats (96%), and independents (81%). (SSRS/CNN, October 2019; partisan breakouts provided by National Immigration Forum because the crosstabs are no longer available online.)

In 2024, asked, “Which of the following do you think is the best way to handle immigrants currently living in the United States undocumented”:

  • “They should be allowed to stay and become citizens if they meet certain requirements,” was chosen by a plurality of 45%, including 59% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans
  • “They should be allowed to stay and become legal residents, but NOT citizens if they meet certain requirements,” was chosen by 19%, including 22% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans
  • “They should be removed or deported from the United States,” was chosen by just 28%, including just 11% of Democrats, but nearly half of Republicans (48%).

Thus, a large majority of 64% chose one of the two options to allow undocumented immigrants to stay legally, including 81% of Democrats. Republicans were statistically divided, with 45% choosing legal status and 48% choosing deportation (and 7% not providing an answer). (Morning Consult/Politico, October 2022)

In 2021, asked the same question, a larger bipartisan majority of 72% chose the options allowing undocumented immigrants to stay legally, including 85% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. (Morning Consult/Politico, January 2021)

In 2024 CNN exit poll, 56% said that “Most undocumented immigrants in the US should be offered a chance at legal status”  while 40% said they should be “ deported.” (CNN, November 2024)

When the question asked people to choose between options that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay with legal status, or ‘requiring them to leave’, support for the latter was a minority position, though Republican support was exceptionally high. This is likely because ‘requiring them to leave’ is less objectionable as it does not specify active coercive efforts by the government to identify, detain or deport undocumented immigrants.

  • In 2024, when asked, “which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently in the US,” and provided three options finely-grained options that would allow them to stay and have legal status, or requiring them “to leave the U.S.,’ the latter was chosen by just 39%, including just 13% of Democrats, but a large majority of Republicans (71%). A large majority of 59% chose one of the three finely-grained options for legal status (Democrats 86%, Republicans 28%). (Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2024

When asked specifically about undocumented workers, large majorities have preferred giving them a path to legal status or citizenship, with mixed results among Republicans. However, these questions have also presented one of the options as ‘requiring them to leave’ rather than specifically mentioning mass deportation.

  • Asked about, “illegal immigrants who are currently working in the US,” and told to choose between three options that would allow them to stay and apply for legal status or citizenship, or “they should be required to leave their jobs and the U.S.,” just 25% chose the latter, including just 8% of Democrats and less than half of Republicans (44%). 
  • Support for requiring undocumented workers to leave the US has remained about the same since 2017, when it was 22%. (CCGA, July 2024)

Standard Polling: Mass deportation as a stand-alone option 

Standard polling has found modest majority support for mass deportation, when it is presented as the sole option for dealing with undocumented immigrants, and few details are provided about the actions necessary to undertake mass deportation or the immigrants who would be affected. As more details are provided, support drops below half.

When no description was provided for the actions that would be necessary to undertake mass deportation, or the scale of deportations, in 2024 standard polls have found around half or modest majorities in support, with very large partisan differences:

  • Asked whether they favor deporting, “All immigrants in the U.S. illegally who have not been convicted of a crime,” just 37% were in favor, 44% opposed and 19% neither favored nor opposed. Among Republicans, a majority of 61% were in favor. Among Democrats, just 19% were in favor and a majority of 64% opposed. (AP-NORC, January 2025)


  • Asked whether they favor, “the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, 49% were in support and 49% opposed. A majority of Republicans were in support (79%), as were half of independents (50%), but just 23% of Democrats. (NPR/PBS News/Marist, January 2025)


  • Asked whether they favor “The mass deportation of undocumented immigrants,” a small majority of 54% were in favor and 42% opposed. A majority of Republicans and independents were in favor (86% and 58%, respectively), but just 25% of Democrats. (Ipsos/Scripps News, September 2024)


  • Asked whether they favor “deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries.” A majority of 61% were in favor, including majorities of Republicans (91%) and independents (57%), but less than half of Democrats (36%, opposed 64%).(Marquette University, August 2024)


  • Asked whether they favor the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants (exact wording not provided), around half were in favor (51%), including a majority of Republicans (68%), but less than half of Democrats (42%) and independents (46%). (Harris/Axios, April 2024)

When details of a potential mass deportation are mentioned, support can drop below half, but not in every case.  

Support dropped well below half when the use of mass detention camps were mentioned. 

  • Asked whether they favor, “the U.S. detaining millions of undocumented immigrants in mass camps as they await their immigration hearings,” just 33% were in favor and a majority of 65% opposed. Majorities of Democrats and independents were opposed (80% and 68%, respectively). A majority of Republicans were still in favor (57%). (CCGA, July 2024)

When an accurate description of most undocumented immigrants was provided support dropped below half. 

  • Asked whether they favor, “deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries even if they have lived here for a number of years, have jobs, and no criminal record.” Just 45% were in favor and a majority of 55% opposed. Majorities of Democrats and independents were opposed (79% and 75%, respectively), while a majority of Republicans were in favor (73%). (Marquette University, August 2024)

When the scale of deportations in the millions is specified, responses have been variable.  

  • In January 2024, asked whether, if Donald Trump becomes President again, they would favor him trying to “Detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants,” 48% were in favor and 52% opposed. Views were sharply partisan: among Republicans, a large majority was in favor (81%), while among Democrats, a large majority was opposed (84%). (SSRS/CNN, January 2024)


  • In October 2024, told that, “There are at least 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States,” and asked whether they would support, “an effort by the federal government to deport all these undocumented immigrants and send them back to their home countries,” a majority of 56% were in favor. Majorities of Republicans and independents were in favor (88% and 58%, respectively), but just 26% of Democrats. (Ipsos/ABC News, October 2024)


When the proposal asked about using the military to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, support has been variable.

  • Asked whether they favor, “Rounding up and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, even if it takes setting up encampments guarded by the U.S. military,” 47% were in favor and 50% opposed. A majority of Republicans were in favor (79%), but just 22% of Democrats. Among independents, 47% were in favor. (PRRI, September 2024)


  • Asked whether they would support, “using military troops to arrest and deport people who are in the U.S. unlawfully,” a majority of 56% were in favor, with 31% opposed. (Partisan breakouts were not provided.) (YouGov/Economist, February 2024)


Standard Polling: Path to citizenship presented as a stand-alone option 

When the option of providing a path to citizenship is presented on its own it elicits majority support, in most cases substantially higher than when mass deportation is presented on its own.   

When the question specified that undocumented immigrants would need to meet certain requirements in order to get legal status, which is true of most legislative proposals, very large majorities have been in support. 

  • Asked whether they favor, “Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time,” a majority of 70% were in favor, including a majority of Democrats (87%) and independents (72%), but just under half of Republicans (46%). (Gallup, June 2024)
  • Asked whether they support a proposal to, “Grant legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least 3 years, and not been convicted of any felony crimes,” a majority of 70% were in favor, including 89% of Democrats, but under half of Republicans (45%, with 55% opposed). (Harvard CES, 2022)

This is, nonetheless, lower than the even higher levels of bipartisan support found a few years ago. 

  • In 2017, asked whether immigrants “who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe,” should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship, 90% were in favor, including 86% of Republicans and 96% of Democrats. (March 2017, CNN ORC)
  • In 2019, asked whether they favor, “Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time,” a majority of 81% were in favor.  Partisan breakouts were not provided but the size of the majority ensures that it was almost certainly bipartisan.  (Gallup, 2019)

Questions that do not specify requirements still get large majorities in support, though not as high as when requirements are specified.   

  • Asked whether they support, “Creating an 8-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are currently living in the United States,” a large majority of 60% were in support, with just 24% opposed and 16% not providing an answer. A majority of Democrats were in support (77%). Among Republicans, 41% were in support, 44% opposed and 15% did not provide an answer. (Morning Consult/Politico, February 2021)
  • Asked whether “A pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are in the US illegally” is a good or a bad idea, 65% said it was a good idea, including 84% of Democrats but just 43% of Republicans.  (July 2019, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Maris)

Support has been lower, but still a majority, when respondents are offered the option to not make s choice (UMass-Amherst/WCVB, January 2024), or divided when the question specifies, contrary to current legislative proposals that the path to citizenship would be offered to all 11 million illegal immigrants (Ipsos/NPR, May 2021).

  • Do NOT undertake a program of mass deportation
  • Provide them a long-term visa with a path to citizenship, if they have not committed a serious crime and pay a penalty and back-taxes
  • Survey: PPC, March 2018

    Respondents were asked whether they favor the following proposal:

    Currently, there is a proposal for creating a legal status for 1.8 million people who were eligible under the DACA program. They would also be eligible to apply for citizenship in 10‐12 years provided that they:

    • graduate from high school
    • pass criminal background checks and do not commit any crime
    • maintain full‐time employment, serve in the military or pursue a higher education or professional degree

    A bipartisan majority of 80% were in favor, including 69% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats.

    Demographics

    More Details

    Briefing
    Respondents were first informed about the details of the DACA program:

    As you may know, there is a major discussion these days about what should happen to people who were brought into the US as minors and never got legal status but have lived here many years. In 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, popularly known as DACA, was established to allow these people (commonly referred to as ‘Dreamers’) to apply for a special status so that they:

    • receive temporary protection from being deported
    • can get a work permit

    provided that they:

    • were under age 31 when the program started in 2012
    • entered the US before age sixteen
    • have continuously resided in the US
    • have not been convicted of a serious crime 
    • are in school, have graduated from high school, are in the military, or have been honorably discharged from the military.

    This status expires after two years and can be renewed provided that the person has not committed a significant crime.

    Approximately 887,000 young people applied for this status, though it was estimated that about 900,000 more were eligible but did not apply (presumably because they were afraid that revealing their illegal presence to the government might someday become a problem for them).

    In 2017, this DACA program was ended so that no new applications would be accepted. Those currently having this protected status will begin to lose it as their two‐year term runs out. They would then become subject to being deported as an illegal alien‐‐for some as soon as this March.

    They were then presented the proposal for granting certain DACA-eligible immigrants a more permanent legal status and path to citizenship:

    Currently, there is a proposal for creating a legal status for 1.8 million people who were eligible under the DACA program. They would also be eligible to apply for citizenship in 10‐12 years provided that they:

    • graduate from high school
    • pass criminal background checks and do not commit any crime
    • maintain full‐time employment, serve in the military or pursue a higher education or professional degree

    Arguments
    They were then asked to evaluate arguments for and against this proposal. Both of the arguments in favor of the proposal were found convincing by very large bipartisan majorities. The arguments against did much less well, but still large majorities of Republicans found them

    Final Recommendation
    Asked for their final recommendation, an overwhelming 80%, including 69% of Republicans as well as 92% of Democrats, approved of the plan to give the 1.8 million ‘Dreamers’ legal status and a path to citizenship. Support was overwhelming in very red and very blue districts as well as Texas, Florida, and California.

    Demographics

    Related Standard Polls

    Polls have found large bipartisan support for granting DACA-eligible immigrants permanent legal status when given details about the requirements for eligibility:

    • Asked whether they favor, “Allowing immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time,” a bipartisan majority of 81% were in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 97%). (Gallup, June 2024)
    • Asked the same question in 2019, a bipartisan majority of 83% were in favor. (Gallup, June 2019)
    • Asked about “a program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States if they arrived here as a child, completed high school or military service and have not been convicted of a serious crime,” 84% favored it (77% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats). (July 2018, Washington Post/Schar School)
    • After being generally informed what DACA is, 84% favored  “allowing these immigrants who were brought to the US illegally as children to remain in the country as long as they meet certain requirements--such as being in the military or in school or having graduated--and don’t have a criminal record,” including 76% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. (February 2018, Politico/Harvard Public Health)
    • Asked what should be done about  “immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and have lived here for at least 10 years and graduated high school here,” 80% favored them being “allowed live and work in the U.S.” (Republicans 71%, Democrats 89%) with just 19% favoring them being “sent back where they came from” (Republicans 27%, Democrats 11%). (2016, American National Election Survey)

    With fewer details of who is eligible for legal status and/or citizenship, overall support has still been high, but lower among Republicans, even dropping below half in one case: 

    • Told that, “many immigrants who came illegally to the U.S. when they were children now have temporary legal status that may be ending,” 73% favored “Congress passing a law granting them permanent legal status,” including 54% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. (June 2018, Pew)
    • Asked about providing “legal status to children of immigrants who are already in the United States and were brought to the United States by their parents,” and providing them with “the option of citizenship in 10 years if they meet citizenship requirements and commit no crimes,” 70% were in support, including 51% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. (2018, Harvard CCES)
    • Asked about “a  bill which allowed undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children to remain in the United States legally,” 75% were in support including 49% of Republicans (37% opposed) and 94% of Democrats. (January 2018, Quinnipiac University)
    • Asked whether they favor “Allowing immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status,” 62% were in favor, including 77% of Democrats, but just 45% of Republicans (50% opposed). (2018, Public Religion Research Institute)

    However, in at least one case, when the alternative to allowing them to remain is specified as requiring them to leave the US, Republican support once again is a large majority.  

    • Asked about allowing “undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children” to “stay in the United States and to eventually apply for US citizenship” 82% favored it (Republicans 69%, Democrats 95%). Another 2-10% favored allowing them to stay but “not be allowed to apply for US citizenship” and 10% favored them being “required to leave the US” (Republicans 18%, Democrats 2%). (September 2017, Quinnipiac University)

    When given a hypothetical example of an undocumented immigrant who was brought to the US as a child but does not qualify for DACA, a bipartisan majority has nonetheless opposed deporting them:

    • Asked to consider an immigrant who “was brought into the country from Mexico illegally 30 years ago as a child and does not qualify for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). He is married with two children, has worked as a landscaper, and does not have a criminal record,” 84% felt they should not be deported (Republicans 68%, Democrats 95%). (February 2018, Politico/Harvard Public Health)

    In one survey that only referred to ‘minors’ who entered the US illegally, support for allowing them to remain has been divided along partisan lines:

    • Asked whether they agree that “undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors should be able to stay in the U.S.,” 50% disagreed, including a majority of Republicans (68%) and 35% of Democrats. Forty seven percent agreed (Republicans 30%, Democrats 62%). (2016, Cornell University America’s Pulse)
    • When another sample in that same survey was asked whether such minors should “have to leave the U.S.,” 52% disagreed, including a majority of Democrats (68%) and 31% of Republicans. Forty six percent agreed (Democrats 29%, Republicans 67%). (2016, Cornell University America’s Pulse)


    Status of Legislation
    The proposal to grant DACA-eligible immigrants a more permanent legal status and path to citizenship was in the Dream Act of 2017 (H.R. 3440, S. 1615), sponsored by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) in the 115th Congress and co-sponsored by Members from both parties. Neither bill made it out of committee.

    In the 117th Congress, this proposal was in the larger immigration reform bill, the American Dream and Promise Act (H.R. 6), sponsored by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D). This bill passed the House, with 230 Democrats and 7 Republicans voting in favor, and 187 Republicans voting against, but was not taken up by the Senate.

    In the 118th Congress, the proposal is in the Dream Act by Sen. Richard Durbin (S. 365) and the American Dream and Promise Act by Rep. Sylvia Garcia (H.R. 12). Neither of these bills made it out of committee.

    Survey: CDD, 2019

    Respondents were asked whether they favor the following proposal: “First-time violators of immigration laws should only be expelled, not subject to criminal punishment.” A bipartisan majority of 69% were in favor, including 68% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats.

    More Details

    Respondents were presented briefing material on illegal immigration across the souther border as part of an in-person deliberation conducted by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019.  Here are some excerpts

    One potential strategy is to prioritize only certain categories of undocumented immigrants — such as those convicted of crimes — for deportation... 

    On the one hand, many policy experts and ordinary citizens are concerned about the rule of law and effective control of our borders. Millions of undocumented immigrants are here in violation of the law, and strict application of the law would require that they leave. From one perspective, justice or procedural fairness requires that they return to their home countries and, in effect, get to the back of the line. Ultimately, truly enforcing the security of our borders means deporting people who come into the country illegally.

    On the other hand, undocumented immigrants may not be able to safely return to their countries of origin. For some, the US is the only home that they know. Do they then have the right to pursue the American dream of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” if they are law-abiding, productive and contribute to our society? Or should these rights apply only to citizens and legal residents? 

    They were presented with a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows:

    Proposal: First-time violators of immigration laws should only be expelled, not subject to criminal punishment.

    Argument for: A policy of criminality that punishes all unauthorized entrants would deter refugees fleeing persecution from seeking asylum. A policy of criminal punishment would separate families, harming the vulnerable children of undocumented immigrants, who would be left in the care of strangers while their parents are in prison.

    Argument against: Asylum seekers can avoid prosecution and criminal punishment if they make their claims at official border crossings. A policy of criminally punishing all violators of immigration laws is an effective way to deter illegal immigration. Foreigners can avoid criminal punishment by complying with US immigration laws.

    They were not asked to rate the arguments.   

    Final Recommendation
    After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposal in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, 69% favored the proposal (6-10), including 68% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats.

    Pre-Deliberation Poll

    Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support increased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (64% to 69%) and among Republicans (47% to 68%). Among Democrats, support was unchanged (74% to 75%).

    Status of Legislation
    This provision -- to not subject first-time immigration law violators to criminal punishment, and instead just expel them -- is in the New Way Forward Act (H.R. 2374) sponsored by Rep. Jesus Garcia (D) in the 118th Congress. It has not yet made it out of committee.

    DEALING WITH ASYLUM SEEKERS

    Survey: PPC, October 2024

    Asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Hire several hundred more asylum judges and staff, to significantly speed up the process of evaluating claims for asylum,” a majority of 58% were in favor, including 74% of Democrats. Among Republicans, just 46% were in favor, but when asked how acceptable it would be on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 60% found it at least tolerable (5-10, with 5 being just tolerable).

    Demographics

    More Details:

    Briefing
    Respondents were first provided a briefing on the asylum case backlog:

    Another important issue related to immigration is the dramatic increase in the number of people who are applying for asylum.

    As you may know, a person receives asylum in a country if they are escaping violence or persecution in their home country. According to international laws the US has agreed to, anyone is allowed to apply for asylum, even if they entered the country illegally. 

    A person who asks for asylum must first pass an initial interview, which includes a background check for any criminal history. If it is decided that they have a credible case for asylum, then they are granted a court hearing. 

    Currently, there is an issue with the asylum system. The number of people applying for asylum in the US has increased from about 50,000 in 2013 to nearly 500,000 in 2023. 5 Meanwhile, the number of judges who handle asylum cases has only increased from 300 to about 700. 

    So, currently, there is a backlog of about 1.5 million asylum cases. The effect is that the wait times for people to get their court hearing averages over four years. During this time, they are allowed to wait in the US.

    They were then presented the following proposal:

    Hire several hundred more asylum judges and staff, to significantly speed up the process of evaluating claims for asylum.

    Arguments
    The argument in favor was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of 71% (Republicans 63%, Democrats 82%). The argument against did not do as well, but was still found convincing by a majority of 57%, including 66% of Republicans, but just half of Democrats (49%).

    Final Recommendation
    Respondents were then presented the final proposal:

    Hire several hundred more asylum judges and staff, to significantly speed up the process of evaluating claims for asylum.

    A majority of 58% were in favor, including 74% of Democrats, but just 46% of Republicans.

    Respondents were also asked how acceptable the proposal is, using a 0-10 scale with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable. A bipartisan majority of 74% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 60% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats.

    Demographics

    Results in Six Swing States
    The 2024 survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all the swing states, majorities of 58-68% favored the proposal, including majorities of Democrats (73-77%). Views were mixed among Republicans: majorities are in favor in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada (57-63%), views are statistically divided in Michigan (48% to 51% opposed), while majorities are opposed in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (54% opposed in each).

    However, among Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, majorities of 62-65% found the proposal at least tolerable.

    Results from Deliberative Democracy Lab
    A 2019 deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab asked respondents about a proposal to, “Increase personnel in order to process asylum seekers’ claims faster.” A very large bipartisan majority of 93% were in favor, including 90% of Republicans and 96% of Democrats.

    Related Standard Polls
    Bipartisan majorities have favored hiring more Border Patrol agents:

    • Asked whether they favor, “Hiring significantly more border patrol agents,” a bipartisan majority of 76% were in favor (Republicans 95%, Democrats 70%), nearly identical to the 75% support in 2020. (Gallup, June 2024)
    • Asked whether they favor a proposal to, “Hire more border patrol agents,” a bipartisan majority of 64% were in favor (Republicans 79%, Democrats 54%). (APNORC, March 2024)

    Survey: Deliberative Democracy Lab, 2019

    Respondents were asked about a proposal to, “Provide aid to reduce poverty and violence in Central America.” On a 0-10 scale, a majority of 57% favored the proposal (6-10), including 70% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans. 

    However, including the option of 5 -- defined as “in the middle” -- the number that did not oppose the proposal was a bipartisan majority of 77%, including 89% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans.

    More Details:

    Briefing
    Respondents were presented with the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation conducted by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019:

    Reasons for the refugee asylum crisis include gang violence and corruption in their native countries. However, data shows that average incomes have grown robustly in all countries for the past decade, and homicides have been on the decline in Honduras and elsewhere since 2012. One theory is that foreign aid from the US to Central American countries may help reduce poverty and violence. Another factor perhaps causing the asylum crisis is the incentive posed by US policy that mandates granting of provisional residence to any asylum applicant who is traveling with children until a hearing to determine their status, which can take years.

    Arguments
    They were presented with a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows:

    Proposal: Provide aid to reduce poverty and violence in Central America.

    Argument for: Promoting economic growth, increasing job opportunities, and strengthening police and law enforcement in Central America will greatly reduce migration at the US-Mexican border, because many migrants are fleeing violence and lawlessness. Targeted initiatives, supported by US funds, can help Central American governments reduce violence in their countries. For example, drug cartels have destroyed effective law enforcement in these countries. The US can aid in the reconstruction of effective and honest police forces and judiciaries. The US can also fund an ambitious job training program to help young people and steer them away from drug gangs.

    Argument against: It isn’t clear that US aid could actually reduce migration from Central America. It would be more effective to deter them from coming to the US by threatening them with long-term detention at the border while their asylum claims are processed. Why should we Central American governments with aid when they aren’t doing their jobs to restrain immigration? The way to stop this illegal immigration is for the US to demand that Mexico stop refugees who have crossed from Central America into Mexican territory from moving northwards into US territory. Mexico should instead arrange for refugees to claim asylum in Mexico.

    Final Recommendation
    After the deliberation, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal to provide aid to reduce poverty and violence in Central America. On a 0-10 scale, 57% favored the proposal (6-10), including 70% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans.

    However, including the option of 5 -- defined as “in the middle” -- the number that did not oppose the proposal was a bipartisan majority of 77%, including 89% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans.

    Pre-Deliberation Poll
    Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support increased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (50% to 57%) and among Republicans (24% to 38%). Among Democrats, support decreased slightly from 73% to 70%. Those not opposed to the proposal increased overall (73% to 77%), and among Republicans (48% to 65%), but decreased slightly among Democrats (91% to 89%).