Immigration Politics

I was reading Democracy Corps strategy memo ringing the alarm bells about immigration as a political issue to try to get a handle on this topic. They're very worried and commence their packet of graphs with this one:

But of course, absent context it's hard to interpret this information. My guess is that most people are inclined to say just about anything is "important" if asked specifically about it in isolation. One way or another, the apparent uniformity of the answer there masks an enormous diversity of actual views:

One thing you have to ask yourself when looking at this is whether or not you think Democratic groups like African-Americans, union households, and single women are poised to abandon the Democratic Party over immigration. With regard to African-Americans, at least, I think we can confidently say that the answer is "no." With the other groups, I don't really know how to answer the question. It's interesting, though, that union members seem to be so out of step with the official positions of most union leaders on this topic. Last, there's this poll:

This graph plays to my prejudices. But since I found it in the midst of an analysis designed to play against my prejudices, I find it pretty noteworthy. And, of course, it backs up other surveys indicating that the immigration issue only really plays with a minority of the public. And, of course, it's now well known that immigration is the biggest concern in areas where immigration is a new phenomenon and my guesstimate is that this leaves the target audience pretty small: Most Americans either aren't white or else live in lily-white areas or else live in highly-diverse big metro areas.

Of course I might be wrong about that. But given the cross-cutting nature of the immigration issue vis-a-vis both ideological and partisan groups, I'm not sure it makes real political sense to think about what "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" should do about this. The way the issue plays, politically, clearly has a lot to do with the demographics of the constituency at hand. I don't have a problem with the idea of House candidates who represent strongly anti-immigration districts deciding they need to take a hard line. But the leap from "hard-line anti-immigration views are politically vital in some congressional districts" to "Democrats should all panic about immigration" seems like a large one to take, despite its popularity.

Comments

I've grown cynical about the ability of pollsters to accurately gauge public opinion on specific issues -- especially complex ones. It increasingly seems to me the only valid poll -- the only one that matters -- is an election. Otherwise it appears that careful wording can get you any result you want.

Posted by Jasper | December 20, 2007 12:09 PM

Of course, absolutely nothing in this actually discusses whether illegal immigration is a net good thing. This seems to be the standard Democratic belief, but it's one they are completely unwilling to either defend or even admit to.

Posted by Soullite | December 20, 2007 12:11 PM

The second chart seems particularly disturbing in that it seems to be asking about all immigrants, rather than just illegal immigrants. The view that tax-paying, entirely law-abiding legal immigrants are somehow taking from the country is just ignorance.

Posted by right | December 20, 2007 12:14 PM

"take" can be broader than economics"

as for your comfort on this graph matt waht are you talking about? that's nearly a 1/3 of the electorate who consier this a massive issue- i bet gay marriage would be such an issues for less of the electorate- are you seriouis arguing the d's wouldn't suffer if they came out for introducing it federally- or the R's from trying to ban sodomy federally?

Posted by edmund | December 20, 2007 12:17 PM

"take" can be broader than economics"

as for your comfort on this graph matt waht are you talking about? that's nearly a 1/3 of the electorate who consier this a massive issue- i bet gay marriage would be such an issues for less of the electorate- are you seriouis arguing the d's wouldn't suffer if they came out for introducing it federally- or the R's from trying to ban sodomy federally?

Posted by edmund | December 20, 2007 12:20 PM

"[O]f course, it's now well known that immigration is the biggest concern in areas where immigration is a new phenomenon and my guesstimate is that this leaves the target audience pretty small."

The question isn't the size of the audience, it is where that audience lives. If immigrant baiting plays in a few swing states, it could be a difference maker regardless of nationwide polling. I know of at least one hotly contested state - Missouri - where significant Hispanic immigration is a relatively new phenomenon. There may be others.

Posted by Leo | December 20, 2007 12:23 PM

A very small amount of immigration can make immigration seem like a big problem to people. And it's been my experience that labor Democrats are especially concerned about this issue. It could be a powerful wedge issue for the Republicans (even though Bush and the business Republicans have been very pro-immigration.)

Posted by John Emerson | December 20, 2007 12:38 PM

You can throw out all this data too. It mixes illegal immigration in the first graph with (legal) immigrations in the rest of the graphs.

Bottom line is Illegal immigration is illegal, and Americans are bored and angery about having illegals attempt to tell Our Government what to do.

We need to send a clear and strong response to ilegals and politicians, if you are here illegally, go home and protest and cry to your own government.

Any policitican who even seems interested in what illegals have to say should be voted out of the office they hold and replaced with someone who understands the value of laws.

Let's send the illegals home and vote out those who would support them in any way shape or form....

Posted by mlimberg | December 20, 2007 12:52 PM

Graphs like the ones above are infinitely more helpful at providing context to the immigration debate. Right now, I feel like the Democratic candidates' approach is where it needs to be. First focus on border security, then pivot to the comprehensive immigration argument and the path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants already here.

This is an issue of some concern, but not of great importance to the country right now. Rational policies like those of the Democrats will be fine. Going any further toward tougher stances risks Hispanic support, and probably wouldn't pay dividends anyways since the Republican is likely to be extremely far to the right on this issue anyway.

Posted by Fox | December 20, 2007 12:53 PM

These opinion surveys are irrelevant.

Remember the right to keep and bear arms. About one twentieth of the citizenry cares enough about RKBA to vote on the issue. Over ninety percent of them are pro-RKBA and the rest anti-RKBA.

But public opinion as a whole favors more vague restrictions on RKBA. When Congress passed the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994, it flipped at least a dozen Southern congressional seats from Democratic to Republican in the next election. Those were seats with concentrated RKBA voters where 10% swing over just that issue was enough to change the outcome. John Kerry lost Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico by less than the margin of Democratic-inclined but pro-RKBA voters who voted for Bush. And those losing campaigns were on the side of the majority, but the majority don't vote on any particular issue, or any issues at all apparently.

Immigration is like that. A few percent of the population, concentrated in a few states and districts votes on immigration issues. Those votes are divided with a solid majority in favor of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration. The question is if those votes are in swing states or districts and whether Democrats can be credible proponents of enforcing the law and win those votes back.

But as long as Democrats are in favor of lawbreaking in principle as long as non-white people do it, we won't find out.

Posted by Brian | December 20, 2007 1:14 PM

"...(even though Bush and the business Republicans have been very pro-immigration.)"

And why, pray tell, is that? It amazes me that the fear of being called "racist" is so paralyzing to "progressives" (or whatever else they call themselves) that they've become the useful idiots of the corporate cheap labor lobby. More amazing is that they're simply unable to admit this to themselves.

That's why Bush and other pro Wall Street types (e.g. Lindsay Graham) implied that republicans opposed to amnesty were racists. They really know how to push all the right buttons to get people like Matt to support their evil corporate empires.

Posted by kafka | December 20, 2007 1:27 PM

Still haven't seen a viable argument in favor of "more people chasing fewer resources". There is no problem confronting this nation that would not be measurably improved by securing our borders, and enforcing our immigration laws. Overpopulation, congestion, crime, pollution, overcrowded failing schools, inadequate health care, skyrocketing taxes, lack of affordable housing, vanishing farm land and green space, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, stagnant or depressed wages, declining quality of life all reflect our past policy of unconstrained immigration. We've tried everything else, now it's time to try enforcing our laws in a meaningful way. Anyone who asserts that we can't round up and deport all illegals doesn't understand the mechanism. Eliminate the jobs and benefits magnet, and many illegals will simply leave. Attrition through enforcement will work, and is already working in some areas. As for the costs of deporting all those who refuse to leave, confiscation and liquidation of assets (ill-gotten gains) is a policy that we utilize effectively and successfully in dozens of other law enforcement scenarios. Indeed, the prospect of losing their "ill-gotten" gains might act as further incentive for many illegals to liquidate their assets and self deport. Additional penalties that would prevent future legal immigration for all those that we are forced to deport, would also incentivize many illegals to leave and get in line to immigrate legally. Arguments of worker shortages are ridiculous. American's will work any job if employers are constrained to compete for the workers they need, and there are hundreds of thousands of legal immigration applicants already in the pipeline who'll need jobs. During the Eisenhower Administration, the Border Patrol, with some assistance from state and local law enforcement, managed to round up and return approximately 1.5 million illegals to Mexico, in less than 4 months, with fewer than 800 border patrol agents. If nothing else, America is genius at logistics. We can and have moved hundreds of thousands of people, millions of tones of goods and equipment, fought two wars simultaneously. while supporting sundry natural disasters throughout the world. If push comes to shove, we can certainly repatriate as many illegal aliens as necessary.

Posted by Ed Weirdness | December 20, 2007 1:36 PM

Careful, people, push too hard on this and you'll break Matt's crush on some sort of '70s PBS ideal of "the people", and that's the biggest thing holding him in your camp.

Posted by Senescent | December 20, 2007 1:40 PM

Ed, for most of the resources you're discussing the amount the United States has of them isn't fixed and increases with the number of people in the country.

As for the costs of deporting all those who refuse to leave, confiscation and liquidation of assets (ill-gotten gains)

This is both false, in describing wages from a job as ill-gotten gains because the person working the job previously violated a law, and insanely cruel.

Posted by washerdreyer | December 20, 2007 1:53 PM

In the interests of honest debate, it seems to me that opponents of immigration control measures have an obligation to actually tell the public what they really want, yet they seldom do. Do they agree with the Wall St. Journal Editorial Board that America should have open borders? If so,say so and try to win the debate honestly. If we accept the current 12 million illegals as citizens, what should our policy be toward the next 12 million? Should we try to shut off future illegal immigration? Should we limit it? If so, how much? Americans would have a far easier time accepting citizenship for our current illegal population if they had confidence that the floodgates would close in the future. Many critics of immigration control simply refuse to state their actual policy preferences on the issue. No wonder voters are suspicious and angry.

Posted by dr | December 20, 2007 2:04 PM

Criminals did NOT build America; Citizens and LEGAL immigrants built it. Illegal Aliens and Immigration is NOT the same thing. 80% of the American people want an end to anarchy! This is NOT a Democrat, Republican, Independent issue. It's an American Issue.

Illegal aliens are criminals, those who hire them are criminals and those who aid-and-abet them are criminals.

Illegal aliens in America have NO rights. We are required by law to arrest and prosecute, deport them. (Title 8 U.S. Code) To report illegal aliens call the DHS National Hotline 1 866 DHS 2ICE. (1-866-347-2523)

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by Dr Coles | December 20, 2007 2:35 PM

Another worthless poll that dishonestly combines legal and illegal immigrants and asks the public to say if an immigrant - that could range from an Italian PhD on work permit to an illegal Columbian drug smuggler are good or bad.

An honest poll would ask the groups about Legal immigrants and Illegal immigrants.

Overpopulation, congestion, crime, pollution, overcrowded failing schools, inadequate health care, skyrocketing taxes, lack of affordable housing, vanishing farm land and green space, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, stagnant or depressed wages, declining quality of life all reflect our past policy of unconstrained immigration. We've tried everything else, now it's time to try enforcing our laws in a meaningful way.

Absolutely, and why anyone with a brain should laugh at someone that wants mass immigration here, but who also is an environmentalist and Kyoto fan that opposes any new energy but sun, wind, and hemp oil and pretends we can magically avoid all the above effects AND conserve our way into CO2 limits and energy independence.

1. Immigration accounts for 90% of US population growth.
2. The US Census projects 363 million people in America by 2030, 420 million by 2050 with half of those immigrants and descendents of immigrants since the 1965 Border opening to large-scale 3rd World populations immigrating here.
3. The growth from 225 million in 1973 to 300 million has completely cancelled out the benefits of all previous energy conservation measures.
4. The US lost some of it's most productive cropland to immigrant spawl and diversion of water and now is a net food importer.
5. The jobless rate for black males caught up in areas of the Hispanic mass invasion has gone from 27% in males aged 18-30 to 72%-90% in LA areas like S. Central, Watts and Compton. 75% of black males, given that joblessness, will end up in prison in those LA areas. Blacks, though, as loyal to the point of being stooges, Democrats, will faithfully vote as Dem Elites tell them to. Thus, the biggest victims of ilegal immigration have not really thought through the impact of them voting pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration. Maybe they think they will never have to have a job if Democrats are in power and lifetime welfare eligibility restarts.
6. China is a mess of overpopulation, fresh water shortages, congestion, pollution, gridlock, ecocological collapse of productive lands, and dispensing with wildlife habitats and environmental standards from necessity. With 300 million people still "underemployed" given their talents and skills, despite the boom - ensuring bad worker conditions and low wages are a permanent way of life as long as China remains overpopulated.

In 2100, US population is projected to be 710-760 million assuming conditions of birthrates and immigration continue. That is more people than China had in 1945.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 20, 2007 3:22 PM

One of the things that the anti-illegal immigrant posters in this thread should realize is that to many people, including myself and, probably, Matt, the ILLEGALITY of illegal immigration is far from its most salient feature. And it isn't because we love a lawless society or don't care about criminal behavior. It's because we think the specific offense here is not, in most circumstances, particularly serious. And it's because we think that "illegality" is used as a smokescreen for arguments about the amount and composition of immigrant flows that people don't want to make openly, and which we would think would produce a more clarifying debate if they were brought out into the open.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 20, 2007 7:48 PM

America is a nation like any other, and we as a people have a right to preserve our identity in the face of massive illegal immigration from foreign nationals with groups such as Mech and the Mexica movement calling for our destruction; that has nothing to do with biggotry on our part and everything to do with a Latin American and mexican Chauvanism. Anyone assumes that because one doesn't want ones country balkanized that you hate the others-no we love foreigners, especially when they stay in their own countries and create their own happiness instead of flooding our labor markets and insisting our society be transformed in their image.

The Jewish people have been able to survive for millennia and preserve their culture because they had pride in their identity and values.We Americans need to take note of this remarkable persistence of a people and stand for who we are as well. Our openness and tolerance should not be used an instrament to dissolve us, and it most certainly is. massive Immigration in Europe has had France burning twice in as many years-Anti Semitism in Europe has a new growth phenemomena.

Latin Americans have their own set of social institutional injustice, and have no business getting on a soap box demonizing Americans who wish to preserve their national identity intact for future generations of Americans as xenephobes.

Latin Americans have a score of countries in this hemisphere, they don't need ours they need to improve theirs. Handing them America on a silver platter as we have been is like handing the car keys to a teenager who has just totaled all the cars in the family except one. Where will WE have to go when they turn the United States into another Brazil or Mexico?

When our forefathers came and built this nation, it came to be considered the worlds, "last best hope". Turn all our cities into Mexico city and this nations posterity will be doomed. Spend some time in Google New reading up on "Crime Latin America" and what one will find is as equally henious and disturbing as anything coming from Al Queda.

Has it ever occurred to any of these nitwits advocating for the massive uprooting of millions of people to flood labor markets that they are the unwitting tools of multinational corporations and those that seek to dimminisah the legislative risk to business posed by Nation States?

If concern for poor Latinos is your honest objective and not simply the domination of American Society by your ethnic group, a more sensible appraoch would be the massive introduction of Capital to latin America-the Chinese have trillions to lend-rather than the massive exportation of Latin American labor.

The fact that I have not heard a single Hispanic advocate for such is telling.

http://texasranger1848.blogspot.com/

Posted by TexasRanger1848 | December 20, 2007 7:57 PM

Washerdreyer,

How do basic resources such as water and land increase with an increase in the number of people in the country? Both of these primary resources decrease relative to the demand of a growing population while levels of pollution and waste increase.

It is not that “wages from a job as ill-gotten gains because the person working the job previously violated a law” but that they are violating employment laws at all moments while they are working.

Posted by BrianSDCA | December 21, 2007 1:41 AM

The Illegal Immigrant Discussion is a watershed event in polling. No other issue that seems so black and white - you are either breaking the law or you are not - has been recast into a rainbow of opinion, political attack, and straw dog interpretations. And in no other area has polling been used as such a naked weapon to try to reform public opinion.

Whether it is a poll that asks if we should handcuff and haul off to jail every Illegal Immigrant found in the U.S. tomorrow and when the majority says "no" pollsters conclude that it means they also support a path to legalization or it is the poll that asks if stopping Illegal Immigration is important but fails to ask how important and so either overstates or understates the passion of the respondent, the end result is the same. Polls are rapidly loosing their importance in illustrating true public opinion.

Polls are becoming a just another choice in the arsenal of tools of the political activist. They have become the soporific lulling the Politicians into a sense of security that the course they are following is what the people want. But in fact they are a double edged sword. They delude the Politicians into courses of action that are out of touch with what is favored by the average Citizen. And in so doing the average Citizen feels as if no one listens, even though polling is more common now than at any time in the past.

As more and more people get turned off by Polls used as a weapon less and less people participate, which makes them even less representative of public opinion and more and more a tool of rationalization. If the road to Hades is paved with rationalization then the poll is becoming just another paving stone along the way. Soon, a useful poll will be as rare as the New Zealand Dodo Bird. And no one would recognize it even if they saw it.

Posted by Norski | December 21, 2007 10:28 AM

Chris Ford - Your piont 4. "The US lost some of it's most productive cropland to immigrant spawl and diversion of water and now is a net food importer" has one problem. The U.S. is a net food importer in Dollars, but not on tonnage. We import very expensive fruits and vegatables and export low cast grains. So the U.S. is still the breadbasket of the world, but we make no money off of it because of our lifestyle.

And your comment about lost farmland is right on the money! One square mile of farmland feeds 1,000 people. U.S. Cities can range from 2,000 people per square mile to over 12,000 people per square mile. So the 12,000,000 Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. have resulted in the conversion of farmland to city so that between one million and six million people have lost their food supply.

Posted by Norski | December 21, 2007 10:49 AM

And it's because we think that "illegality" is used as a smokescreen for arguments about the amount and composition of immigrant flows that people don't want to make openly, and which we would think would produce a more clarifying debate if they were brought out into the open. - Dilan Esper

The size and composition of the total immigrant population IS an important question, and one people have the right to address, and would be addressing if liberals hadn't demonized anyone who raises it. So if you're a leftist, Dilan, you have no one but yourself to blame for the dishonesty of the conversation.

Americans have the right to raise questions about the cultural cohesion of their country without being called racists, especially when leftists are so happy to use "diversity" to tear apart and undermine the political process, freedom of speech (see the Mark Steyn case in Canada), and to enlarge the racial spoils system.

We have a right to raise questions about the size of the immigrant population. 70% of our population growth is due to immigration, and over 1 million people are legally naturalized each year - a number far too large to be sustainable or in the best interests of the people.

The reality is that it is illegal immigration that is spurring the rethought of every type of immigration. Congress, for example, has refused to extend portions of the H1-b program, the result being that these skilled worker visas have now fallen from 195,000 per year to just 65,000 per year.

The last time we had an immigration debate this vigorous it resulted in the nearly complete shutdown of immigration to the USA for over 4 decades. Those of us in favor of immigration sanity have a lot of work to do, but history is on our side.

Posted by Bobblehead Bob | December 23, 2007 9:16 PM