US views on immigration

Post Reply New Topic

Pew Research just released a study showing the development in US attitudes towards immigration since 1994.

Given the current debates wrt. the coming 2016 presidential election, one might get the impression that attitudes towards immigrants in the US had become more negative. This is not the case, however:



As demonstrated above US public opinion about immigration has become increasingly more positive in the last two decades. While there has been little change in attitudes among Republicans, the share of Democrats with positive views toward immigration has more than doubled since 1994 (from 32 to 78 percent). A similar trend is seen within age groups, where the increasingly positive views of immigration have largely been driven by younger generations.

Of even greater interest wrt. the current presidential debates are the views on illegal/undocumented immigrants.



3 out of 4 US citizens are in favour of allowing undocumented migrants to stay in the US legally, and this share appears to have marginally increased since 2013. Furthermore, almost 60 percent of Republican/leaners also share this view.

Finally, the proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border is not only overwhelmingly unpopular among Democrats; among Republicans it is even opposed by a slight majority of Kasich supporters.

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... l-divides/

All in all, this suggests that Trump's anti-immigration position could backfire tremendously on him in the general election.

Please discuss.

Trump would lose because he offended Hispanics. They are an important component of the Republican Party in Florida, especially.

Many conservative Republicans can't stand him, either, not to mention liberal Democrats and Jewish people.

Except for maybe Texas, he'd lose the four largest states in terms of electoral vote.

Except that Republicans are voting in the primary states in much higher numbers than Democrats. This suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about electing a Republican nominee than Democratic nominee. This, of course, appears to be largely meaningless considering that both major political parties are now minority parties (26 percent registered Democrats in the United States, 29 percent registered Republicans and ... wait for it ... 41 percent registered as unaffiliated or "independent" voters. A few years ago, 30 percent of the then-registered Democrats in the United States left their political party by re-registering as independents, and haven't looked back. Neither party will be able to win in 2016 without convincing unaffiliated voters to help them. That is a tough sell considering that about half of the nation no longer cares about partisan politics.

Primary turnout does not predict general election outcomes.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... predict-g/

Nor are Republican primary voters representative of those Republicans who vote in the general election:

http://www.people-press.org/2016/01/28/ ... on-voters/

American views on immigration are much more nuanced, polling is all about how the question is framed and when it's asked not to mention the geographic differences. Ask about illegal immigration specifically rather than immigration overall and you'll find overwhelming support for Trump's proposals of building a wall, taking funding away from 'Sanctuary Cities', and deportation. A lot of people don't understand how much legal immigration and these work programs have been abused by big business, it is something that needs to be better illustrated. Most people know we're not getting a fair deal.

Pew should of asked, "Do you support immigration, so your employer can find a cheaper labor immigrant to replace you?".

For example, Southern California Edison (SCE) fired their entire IT department and turned the work over to Infosys (Indian company) that brought in many low cost Indian IT workers on the H1B immigration program. At one point, SCE had 1800 workers, and 1500 contracters, now all are doing something else.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/28 ... ments.html

Now how many SCE democrats thought, gee, immigration is wonderful, they add to our economy.

Or they should have asked: "Do you oppose immigration, so your employer will have to fire all their US workers (including you) and move abroad to get the necessary qualified labour?"

I, too, can formulate a "When-Did-You-Stop-Beating-You-Wife" loaded question.

But, to be honest (and we all want to be honest, right?) we would have to also say:

"Or they should have asked: "Do you oppose immigration, so your employer will have to fire all their US workers (including you) and move abroad to get the necessary qualified labour? AT MUCH LOWER RATES OF PAY SOMETIMES A TENTH OF WHAT U.S. WORKERS EARN. There now, doesn't that sound better?

I suggest these words because the aim of capitalists in this country is to always take the route that brings the most profit. Load up your lobbyists with lots of cash and special offers and you can also make the laws swing in your favor.

It's NOT called a "When-Did-You-Stop-Beating-You-Wife" loaded question, when the premises are correct....only when they're not, as you've demonstrated.

It's really FUNNY when they make fun of people's accents on South Park, isn't it ("They took our jobs!")? But when you know the people who depend on these jobs because their personal situation prevents them from better jobs....to see them pushed into unemployment because of the huge Mexican inrush...hurts. This is real, not hypothetical; just be happy it doesn't apply to you.

Yeah that is what Clinton will have to explain to people.

She thinks NAFTA is good, while Trump thinks it isn't.

She will have to explain to voters why it's good that Mexicans take their jobs.