Poll: Public Split on Dream Act, Rubio Alternative

US-Mexico Border fence
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
May 8, 2012, 5:35 p.m.

On im­mig­ra­tion, most Amer­ic­ans fa­vor the vel­vet glove””and the iron fist.

The latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll found that a sol­id, if slightly di­min­ish­ing, ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans sup­port key ele­ments of Ari­zona’s anti-il­leg­al-im­mig­ra­tion law that the White House is seek­ing to over­turn.

But the sur­vey also found that a pre­pon­der­ant ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans re­ject the op­tion of de­port­ing all of the es­tim­ated 11 mil­lion im­mig­rants here il­leg­ally, and an even lar­ger per­cent­age be­lieve that young people brought to the U.S. il­leg­ally should be al­lowed to re­main if they at­tend col­lege or join the mil­it­ary. Presen­ted with a Demo­crat­ic pro­pos­al that would guar­an­tee those young people a path­way to cit­izen­ship, and an emer­ging al­tern­at­ive from Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., that would not, a plur­al­ity said they prefer the Demo­crat­ic ver­sion of the so-called Dream Act.

These con­trast­ing im­pulses re­af­firm a bal­ance long evid­ent in pub­lic at­ti­tudes. Most Amer­ic­ans con­sist­ently have dis­played a strong com­mit­ment to en­for­cing ex­ist­ing law and bor­der se­cur­ity, tempered by a prag­mat­ic and hu­mane streak that ques­tions the plaus­ib­il­ity of up­root­ing mil­lions already settled here. Race, age, and party loy­alty all in­flu­ence how Amer­ic­ans tilt between those poles.
The Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 999 adults on May 3-6; it has a mar­gin of er­ror of +/- 3.6 per­cent.

The in­stinct to con­trol the bor­der is ap­par­ent in sup­port for some of the con­tro­ver­sial ele­ments of the Ari­zona stat­ute, over which the Su­preme Court heard or­al ar­gu­ments in April. Some 57 per­cent in the poll said they sup­por­ted the pro­vi­sion al­low­ing “po­lice to ques­tion any­one who they think may be in the coun­try il­leg­ally.” Like­wise, 68 per­cent said that they sup­port the pro­vi­sion re­quir­ing “people to pro­duce doc­u­ments veri­fy­ing their leg­al status if po­lice ask for them.” Both of these pro­vi­sions drew ma­jor­ity sup­port not only from whites, but also from Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans (though sup­port among the lat­ter lagged slightly). Strong ma­jor­it­ies of Re­pub­lic­ans and in­de­pend­ents backed both ideas as well, and nearly three-fifths of Demo­crats sup­por­ted al­low­ing po­lice to ask for pa­pers (though a slight ma­jor­ity of Demo­crats op­posed po­lice stops of sus­pec­ted il­leg­al im­mig­rants). Both young­er and older whites liked the two pro­vi­sions. Only His­pan­ics broke against both ideas (the sur­vey in­cluded too few His­pan­ics to re­port their re­sponses in gran­u­lar de­tail).

Two oth­er com­pon­ents of the Ari­zona law drew less back­ing. A nar­row 53 per­cent ma­jor­ity said that po­lice should be al­lowed “to de­tain any­one who can­not veri­fy their leg­al status,” a sig­ni­fic­ant drop from the 67 per­cent who sup­por­ted that idea in 2010. Most whites and Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans backed al­low­ing such de­ten­tion, but it faced great­er res­ist­ance from Demo­crats, in­de­pend­ents, young whites, and above all, His­pan­ics. Those polled split evenly, 47 to 47 per­cent, on the law’s pro­vi­sion mak­ing it a crime “for any­one in the coun­try il­leg­ally” to seek or ac­cept work.

The sur­vey also tested at­ti­tudes to­ward deal­ing with young people brought to the U.S. il­leg­ally by their par­ents. Asked what should be done with young people brought here il­leg­ally who are at­tend­ing col­lege or have en­lis­ted in the mil­it­ary, a 49 per­cent plur­al­ity agreed that Con­gress should al­low them to re­main in the coun­try “and guar­an­tee them that they can be­come Amer­ic­an cit­izens if they com­plete their stud­ies or mil­it­ary ser­vice.” An­oth­er 35 per­cent said that Wash­ing­ton should in­stead al­low them to re­main here and “ap­ply for cit­izen­ship … but not guar­an­tee them that they can be­come Amer­ic­an cit­izens.”

The ques­tion did not identi­fy the par­tis­an spon­sors, but the first op­tion sum­mar­izes the Demo­crats’ ex­ist­ing Dream Act, and the second, the al­tern­at­ive that Re­pub­lic­an star Ru­bio is draft­ing. Demo­crats strongly pre­ferred the first op­tion, while in­de­pend­ents did so nar­rowly, and Re­pub­lic­ans split al­most evenly between the two. His­pan­ics heav­ily pre­ferred the Demo­crat­ic op­tion, which also drew sup­port from a slight ma­jor­ity of Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans and a nar­row plur­al­ity of whites. Only one-in-10 of those polled (and even just one-in-sev­en Re­pub­lic­ans) said that those young people should not be al­lowed to re­main here. Sim­il­arly, just 17 per­cent said that the gov­ern­ment should de­port all of the il­leg­al im­mig­rants here “no mat­ter how long” they have lived in the coun­try; that’s down from 25 per­cent last Decem­ber.

An­oth­er 33 per­cent said that all il­leg­al im­mig­rants should be al­lowed to re­main “provided they have broken no oth­er laws and com­mit to learn­ing Eng­lish and U.S. his­tory.”  Forty-four per­cent agreed that the gov­ern­ment should “de­port some, but al­low those who have been here for many years and have broken no oth­er laws to stay here leg­ally.”

Even among the most so­cially con­ser­vat­ive com­pon­ents of the white elect­or­ate””in­clud­ing non­col­lege whites, white seni­ors, and white Re­pub­lic­ans””only about one-in-five sup­por­ted mass de­port­a­tion.

What We're Following See More »
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
2 hours ago
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
2 hours ago

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
4 hours ago
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
7 hours ago

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
7 hours ago

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."