Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

The Immigration Paradox The Immigration Paradox

This ad will end in seconds
Close X

Want access to this content? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation



The Immigration Paradox

Americans say they want to give illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship, but their representatives aren't sure they mean it.


Though most Americans consistently tell pollsters they want to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows, most politicians consistently reject legislation that would do so.(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Call it the immigration paradox.

For years, in good economic times and bad, polls have consistently found that most Americans believe immigrants who are in the United States illegally should be provided a pathway to legal status if they take steps such as paying a fine or learning English. And yet, no matter how many times pollsters return that verdict, most Republican and Democratic elected officials alike remain convinced that providing illegal immigrants any route to legal status is a losing cause politically.


It’s difficult to think of another issue on which so many political leaders are so flatly, reflexively dismissive of a consistent finding in public opinion polling. “I have given briefings to Republican congressmen at retreats on Capitol Hill [about those numbers] and they just look at me and say flatly, ‘that’s not what people in my district think,' " says Republican pollster Whit Ayres. Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux agrees: “A lot of politicians are dubious.”

Obama tries to rebuild Bush coalition

President Obama on Tuesday rang the bell for another round of national debate over immigration reform with a forceful speech in El Paso, Texas. In his remarks, he argued for a comprehensive approach to immigration that would blend tougher enforcement with a guest-worker program and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants—the same tripartite formula that passed the Senate with bipartisan support in 2006.

PICTURES: Recent Attempts at Immigration Reform

Better Late Than Never? On Visit to Border, Obama Pushes to Revive Immigration Reform


Even immigration reform advocates say it is unlikely the Senate will seriously consider such a proposal before 2013, and any such plan is a non-starter in the Republican-controlled House. It’s more likely, allies say, that Obama intends to revive a public dialogue over the issue that has been largely dormant since bipartisan reform efforts collapsed in the Senate in 2007.

In the near-term, that could somewhat help Obama restore his frayed relations with Hispanic leaders, who believe he has shortchanged their concerns; in the long-term, the goal is to reconstruct the broad business-labor-minority group coalition that helped advocates build bipartisan Senate support for reform under President George W. Bush. The White House “says it is still hoping for a breakthrough on legislation [before 2012],” says Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration reform advocacy group. “But they are really teeing this up for a second term. I think this is more a marathon than a sprint.”

On Wednesday morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, who led efforts last year to negotiate a bipartisan reform bill, said he is still courting Republicans in the hope the Senate will act on immigration before 2012. “While it’s certainly not likely, it’s a possibility,” he told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg News.

Schumer acknowledged that one reason bipartisan talks over immigration reform collapsed last year was because no other Senate Republican would endorse a plan he negotiated with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But Schumer asserted that the key role Hispanic voters played in Democratic Senate victories last fall in Colorado, California, Washington and above all Nevada is causing some Republicans to privately reconsider their blanket opposition to that idea. “I think the election results had an effect on Republican thinking,” he said. “Thoughtful conservative Republicans I talk to realize they have to do something here.”


Public attitudes toward immigration, as on many issues, can vary depending on the wording of poll questions. Depending on how the options are phrased, some surveys (such as a USA Today/Gallup Poll in January) find the country very closely divided, or even slightly opposed to creating a means for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status and ultimately citizenship.

But in most surveys, a solid majority of Americans routinely supports establishing such a pathway to citizenship. What’s more, the results have been remarkably stable over the years.

In March, for instance, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 72 percent of Americans said they would support “providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines, and have jobs.” On the four other occasions Pew has asked that question, dating back to 2007, at least 58 percent of Americans have echoed that sentiment.

Likewise, in CBS/New York Times polls dating back to 2006, consistently only about one-third of Americans have said that illegal immigrants should be deported, while about three-fifths or more have said they should be allowed to obtain legal status and remain in the country if they meet certain conditions. Surveys by the Los Angeles Times and the ABC/Washington Post dating back to the 2006 immigration debate have usually produced similar results as well.

In the latest Pew survey, nearly four-fifths of Democrats and almost three-fourths of independents supported a pathway to legalization—as did more than three-fifths of both Republicans and self-indentified conservatives.

Given the breadth—and persistence—of those findings, why do many politicians consider legalization a political third rail?

comments powered by Disqus