Voters View Immigration Reform

Voters View Immigration Reform

Since 2004, when Bush garner slightly over two out of every five Hispanic voters, Republicans have lost ground among Hispanics.  Hispanics played a central role in 2016 election in key battleground states, in particular Nevada and Colorado.

In a Pew Study of Hispanic voters before the 2014 election, 54% of Hispanic voters could support a candidate who disagreed with them on immigration.  But, one third Hispanics would vote against a candidate who disagreed with them. To what extent will this become an issue for Hispanic and how will this affect GOP efforts in the future?

We noticed a change in Hispanic’s attitude on immigration in our August 2014 survey.   After the children exodus from Central America, many Americans became aware Obama seemed unconcerned about border security.  This may have been a game changer along with Ebola hitting our shores.  Many Americans viewed border security as a prerequisite for further immigration reform.

When asked certain options in our 2014 Hispanic August poll, 20% of Hispanics supported border security before further immigration reform.  Whereas, 16% of Hispanics favored allowing those here illegally to stay provided they had a job.  But, no pate to citizenship.  However, 49% wanted a path of citizenship for those were here.  The rest either didn’t know or had other ideas unidentified.

In a 2014 post-election poll conducted among Hispanics in Wisconsin, New Mexico and IllinoisHispanic Family, 27% of Hispanics favored no immigration until border security.  However, nearly 19% of Hispanics favored allowng illegals to stay with no path to citizenship.  36% believe in a path to citizenship.  18% favored other un-identified options.

Exit polls of black voters in Wisconsin and North Carolina, show 20% favored no immigration reform until border security.  However, 19% favored allowing illegals to stay in the country with no path to citizenship.  36% believed in a path to citizenship with 24% taking other options.

In our national poll following the 2014 election, 27% of Blacks and 26% of Hispanics did not support immigration until the border is secured.  17% of Black voters and 23% of Hispanics support allowing illegal to stay in the country with no path to citizenship.  33% of blacks and 35% of Hispanics support a path to citizenship.  Other options were supported by 22% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics.  45% of white voters supported border security before any discussion of any immigration reform.  Nearly 14% supported allowing those to stay with no path while nearly 23% supported a path a citizenship.  The rest supported other options.

There are two ways to view this.  Less than half of Hispanics support a path to citizenship.  But, 55 to 65% of those surveyed in the three polls in 2014 supported options allowing illegals to stay.  Two thirds of those favored legal status for illegals with a path to citizenship.  (50% of black voters in our national poll support options that allow immigrants to stay in the country.  Whereas, only 38% of White voters feel the same way).

In our 2014 national poll, 65% of whites and 56% of blacks believed that additional immigration will take away jobs.  However, 54% of Hispanics believe that Hispanics add to jobs.

Hispanics were more willing to support options allowing illegals to stay in the country.  But, only 35% to 49% of Hispanics supported a path to citizenship for illegals outright.  If the Pew Center research is right, many Hispanics are willing to listen to Republicans on other issues even if they disagree with them on immigration.  In 2016, Democrats used immigration as a wedge issues to get Hispanics to vote.  While Hispanics increased their turnout by 10%, they actually voted for Trump at a slightly higher level than they did for Romney in 2012.

Hispanics are not a monolithic group as they are as varied a demographic as white voters.  And, as we have already seen, many Hispanics do have views similar to other whites.  Further confusion is seen in our summer survey.  When Hispanics were asked, should those children who entered the country last summer be allowed to stay?  80% said yes.  But, when asked would you want those children moved into your neighborhood, nearly 60% said no!  While it can be argued Hispanics are supportive of options allowing illegals to stay, it is not as overwhelming as one would think.

In the two separate 2016 national polls, with a Voice Broadcasting poll showing data similar to produced in 2014 and the other differ as far as what to do about path to citizenship.  But, both polls show similarity as far as what future immigration levels should look like.

In the Voice broadcasting poll, 39% of voters oppose any further immigration reform until the border is secure.  11% state they would allow immigrants legal status provided they had a job.  But, there would not be a path to citizenship.  Meanwhile, 37% state they want a path to citizenship

58% of Republicans and 40% of Independents favor no further immigration until the borders are secured.  However, only 19% of Democrats want to wait for the border to be secure.  12% of Democrats, 10% of Republicans and 12% of Independent favored allowing illegals to stay with no path to citizenship provided the illegals had a job.  55% of Democrats allowed illegals a path to citizenship.  However, only 19% Republicans favored a path to citizenship.

40% of Whites, 26% of Blacks, 27% of Hispanics and 34% of Asians favored no further immigration reform until the border is secured.  Meanwhile, 11% of Whites, 17% of Blacks, 13% of Hispanics and 16% of Asians favored legal status for illegals provided they had a job with no path to citizenship.  36% of Whites, 41% of Blacks, 47% of Hispanics and 39% of Asians favored a path to citizenship.

This contrasts with the Cyngal poll in which 34% of voters wanted no further immigration until the border is secured.  While 47% favored a path to citizenship and 10% favored allowing a legal status with no path to citizenship.  So it would appear that there is a divided America on this issue as one poll had border security given priority over any path to citizenship and the other viewed a path to citizenship.

51% of Republicans, 18% of Democrats and 33% of Independents wanted border security before proceeding with any further immigration.  Meanwhile 64% of Democrats and 47% of Independents favored a path to citizenship with only 30% of Republicans supporting such a path.  10% of Republicans, 9% of Democrats and 11% of Independents favored allowing legal status based on employment status with no path to citizenship.

36% of Whites, 21% of Blacks, 21% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians wanted border security before any further immigration reform.  But, 45% of Whites, 55% of Blacks, 60% of Hispanics and 55% of Asians favored a path to citizenship.  10% of Whites, 12% of blacks, 14% of Hispanics and 12% of Asians favored legal status with no path to citizenship.

Americas Majority has numerous polls in which the support for legal status was lower than other polls.  But, one conclusion can be made:  The majority of minorities favor legal status for illegals.  But, the polls are divided over if a majority of minorities believe in a path to citizenship.  Whites as a group favor legal status slightly but less than half favor a path to citizenship.  Throughout the Republican primary, a majority of Republicans favored legal status.  In exit polls, 70% of voters favored legal status.  But, in neither case, the definition of what constitutes legal status was asked.  In our poll we did ask that question and got a more definite answer of what voters want.

Another question rarely asked is the level of future immigration.  While many polls ask whether immigration is good for America or ask about legal status, rarely do we get an insight on whether voters actually want immigration levels to stay the same, reduced or increased.  Here we see there is a consensus being formed.

In the Voice Broadcasting poll, 49% of voters favored reduced levels.  While only 26% favored either keeping the level the same or increased.  The rest are unsure.  In the Cyngal poll, 51% of voters wanted a reduction in immigration levels while only 33% wanted immigration levels increased or the same.

In the same Voice Broadcasting poll, 68% of Republicans and 50% of Independents favor reduced immigration levels.  Meanwhile 12% of Republicans and 26% of Independents want levels increased or the same.  31% of Democrats wanted reduced immigration while 40% wanted more immigration or levels to stay the same.  In the Cyngal poll, 64% of Republicans and 47% of Independents wanted reduced levels while only 19% Republicans and 36% of Independents wanted to see increased immigration or immigration to stay the same.  39% Democrats favored reduced levels while 46% wanted to see either immigration levels to stay the same or increased.

In the Voice Broadcasting poll, 51% of Whites, 38% of Blacks, 40% of Hispanics and 42% of Asian voters want immigration levels reduced.  Meanwhile 25% of Whites, 29% of Blacks, 33% of Hispanics and 41% of Asian voters want immigration levels increased or the same.  In the Cyngal poll, 53% of Whites, 41% of Blacks, 46% of Hispanics and 50% of Asians wanted immigration reduced.  Meanwhile 31% of Whites, 40% of Blacks, 45% of Hispanics and 36% of Asians favor increased immigration levels or levels remaining the same.

While Democrats favored increase immigration, a significant numbers of Democrats would love to see immigration levels reduced.  Republicans and Independents favored lower levels of immigration.  Nearly half of Hispanics favored reduction of immigration levels.  This is a change from 2014 when the majority of Hispanics viewed immigration as a positive for the economy.  Other groups viewed it as a negative.  Now it could be argued more Hispanics favor lower immigration levels as opposed to increasing levels.  Many Hispanics doubt if increased immigration levels will actually raise the overall economy.

Conclusions on Immigration Reform

This certainly points to a possible compromise on immigration reform.  A significant numbers of Americans favor border security as a perquisite to further reform.  While Americans favor legal status and a path to citizenship, they also want future immigration levels reduced to allow for assimilation.  And, they don’t view increased immigration as a boon to economic health.  So any reforms that combine all three have a chance to pass.  One of the great secrets of the election is Trump’s reforms, when complete, would result in nearly the same number of illegals as other plans.  The difference is that Trump’s reforms don’t happen until the border is secured.  And, those illegals with criminal records would be deported.  Republicans are moving toward a future immigration plan which reduces future levels.  On this score, it would appear that most Americans, including minorities, agree.

Share This Post

One Response to "Voters View Immigration Reform"

  1. Statistics are the tools of issues abstractly contrived. One only has to research the polls that were taken before, during (exit polls) and after this last election. To make an argument, all one needs to know is how to frame the questions. It is an art, it is a science and it is fallible, manipulate-able and certainly not impartial. In the extreme, those who give the answer wanted are likely to get the business. The statistical odds that rule Las Vegas is probably the closest one gets to an “honest” statistic.

    Immigration would not be a problem now if the laws on the books were enforced. Having said that, one might, and should, embrace first and foremost, honor the “rule of law”, for we are a nation of laws or we are nothing. Simply put, enforce laws that on the books or “legally” change them.

    Amnesty, pardon or legal forgiveness is last. Ignorance of the law is not tolerable, and nullification leads to anarchy. The path for future immigration must be clear and with penalties, civil and tort, for disobeying our laws of sovereignty. Regardless of the lack of integrity, disabused selective enforcement, lawlessness by our politicians, ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Sanctuary cities will fall in line or law and order will suffer.

    Next is Ayn Rand’s version of self-interest. We have 94 million able bodied individuals that have “stopped” looking for work, there is no work, and they are not counted in the 320 million as unemployed. If they were counted, and should be, the unemployment number hangs at 30%. Every illegal immigrant stands to take a job away from a citizen.

    Assimilation must be a mandate not an option. Immigrants flooded our shores until the 1921 anarchism of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti hit America, not too dissimilar to acts of radical extreme Islam.

    In 1921, the Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. There was essentially forced assimilation from 1921 until “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965” (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the “Hart–Celler Act”. There is a lesson here and there. It is “assimilation”.

    Everything south of the border titters on the definition of a failed state. The Middle East is in chaos and Europe is in a managed decline. The collapse of the European Union is very possible.

    Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is national sovereignty suicide. With 30% real unemployment, illegal immigration is a real problem for all citizens. Charity and generosity must begin at home. America is the most generous nation in the world. The “national debt” however screams of an inability to shoulder more and a lack of discipline to solve the problem.

    We must first solve the economic and social problems of our nation and “right our ship of state”. Things have not gotten better, for most, in the last eight years. And this is also a global indictment.

    Don’t be blind. World wars are intrinsically connected to religion and economics. And when there are failed policies within these two entities, there is a unique and immediate need for “alarm”.

    Many will advise that Hillary had the money for the very, very best surveys, polling and statistical analysis, but she put too much confidence in the wrong statistics. Why and when were they wrong? The first is unknown. The second became a fact, when she lost! What else is there to say?

    The nationalism disunity to unity from September 10, 2001 to September 12, 2001 had nothing at all to do with statistics. Events changed everything.

    This is nothing but another point of view. You did a great job of analysis, a “The View from Pompey’s Head”, missing votes, instead of missing royalties. What were the vote projections, statistics, November 7, 2016 and November 9, 2016? Why were they so utterly wrong?


Post Comment