
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 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 Final Recommendation 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 Related Standard Polls Bipartisan majorities have favored hiring more Border Patrol agents:
|
|
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 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 Final Recommendation 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 However, in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, majorities of 54-61% found the proposal at least tolerable. Past PPC Survey 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:
In 2023:
In 2021:
In 2019:
In 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. | |
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 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 Final Recommendation 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 Results from Past PPC Survey 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 Related Standard Polls
Status of Legislation This proposal has been introduced in numerous bills since then. Currently, the most sponsored bills that include this proposal, in the 118th Congress, are:
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 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:
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 Final Recommendation 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 Results from past PPC Survey 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 Status of Proposal Similar proposals for increasing the number of migrant work visas have been put forward in the 118th Congress:
|
|
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:
AND
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 |
|
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 However, among Republicans in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a majority found the proposal at least tolerable: 67% and 70%, respectively. Results from Past PPC Survey increasing the number of green cards provided to immigrants who are selected because:
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 Related Standard Polls
|
|
| |
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. | |
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:
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:
Evaluating a Path to Citizenship 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:
This new type of visa would:
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 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:
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 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 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.
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, “Which of the following do you think is the best way to handle immigrants currently living in the United States undocumented”:
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.
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.
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:
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.
When an accurate description of most undocumented immigrants was provided support dropped below half.
When the scale of deportations in the millions is specified, responses have been variable.
When the proposal asked about using the military to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, support has been variable.
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.
This is, nonetheless, lower than the even higher levels of bipartisan support found a few years ago.
Questions that do not specify requirements still get large majorities in support, though not as high as when requirements are specified.
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). |
|
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:
A bipartisan majority of 80% were in favor, including 69% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats. Demographics More Details Briefing 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:
provided that they:
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:
Arguments Final Recommendation 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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
Status of Legislation 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 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 |
|
| |
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 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 Final Recommendation 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 However, among Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, majorities of 62-65% found the proposal at least tolerable. Results from Deliberative Democracy Lab Related Standard Polls
|
|
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 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 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 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 |