Are Trump's immigration views out of the mainstream? (Survey says No)

Washington Examiner ^ | 8/16/15 10:53 PM | BYRON YORK

[xzins]

Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate's leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump's positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics.

"Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants 'Have to Go,'" read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on "Meet the Press." "They have to go," Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. "We either have a country or we don't have a country." At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

Some of Trump's presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. "Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we'll let some of them come back," Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. "I just hope we don't go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he's going to take all of us with him if we don't watch it."

But are Trump's views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public's views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.

The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:

1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.

7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.

Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven.

The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump. Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a "small number" of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent.

"Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse," Broockman and Ahler conclude.

Trump's immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It's probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump's position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump's immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Leep]

“Now, Chrispy doing that would be a sight to behold!”

I would guess, mostly through it. Kind of like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE

[Georgia Girl 2]

It must have killed Byron York to admit this. LOL!

[theoldmarine]

I really like your thinking. Of course Allen West is great but Oliver North would also be fantastic!

[xzins]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This could not be more obvious.

I agree that the 'subject clause' makes that amendment absolutely clear, but Scotus decided nonetheless that it meant anyone born here. It is an irrational interpretation, and in my opinion a criminal one.

Nonetheless, it needs to be stopped, and an addition to the amendment is the most certain answer. "All persons born to a US citizen or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

[knarf]

I'm going to stop trying to explain to FreepeRs that I'm talking about the publications .... NOT Trump NOR his policies

Really, really READ what I said

[knarf]

You TOO ?

It's about the publications ... not Trump

I'm supporting him NOW ... why would I change if he gets the nomination ?

[xzins]

I wouldn’t worry about it. Since there’s no edit key you can’t go back and reword what you meant, so any number of people for the next day or two will read something for the first time and not realize a person has already responded to it.

Edit keys are nice, but every thread eventually blows over. :>)

[knarf]

Yeah ... thanx

[noinfringers2]

I tend to believe you have given a workable and needed listing of persons and positions for a Trump cabinet. However, there has to be a place for Cruz.

[Tzimisce]

14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment took the power of defining citizenship out of the hands of the states and put it in the power of the federal government so that the freed slaves would be incorporated into the general population.

[jjsheridan5]

But absent from the Trump's report is a commitment to e-verify beyond just mentioning it -yes, I understand that there is a general provision elsewhere in the document which calls for the enforcement of laws but I am also informed that e-verify is voluntary under current law.

Just a thought. By background, Trump is the type of person who would be well-versed in the skill of holding back cards, to play at the right time. Of all of the specific components of his immigration plan, the one that would have the broadest and loudest support would be "crack down on employers". Maybe he is only hinting at this now, so that he can later make a big splash with the specifics of what he would do to those employers.

I have a hard time believing that he would listen to Sessions on everything else, yet hit employers with padded gloves. I have a gut feeling that when he comes out with the specific remedy for these types of employers, it is going to be shocking in its severity.

[nathanbedford]

That could be but it also could be that Trump calculates that illegal aliens do not Vote and (or at least should not vote) and business owners do.

I have no information either way.

[jjsheridan5]

I hope it is not. I suspect the number of affected business owners is dwarfed by the number of people who would be breaking out champagne if the employer penalties included significant jail-time.

[P-Marlowe]

Congress has both the power and authority to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. If Congress determines that Illegal Aliens, by trespassing on the territory of the United States, are not “subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, then their children born during the trespass would not be eligible for birthright citzenship. The power to control the immigration laws is given to Congress and not the courts. The 14th amendment was not passed to give trespassers the same rights as legal residents. There is nothing in the history of the 14th Amendment which could possibly be construed to suggest that was the intent.

[ek_hornbeck]

When the media characterizes views as "mainstream" vs. "fringe/extreme," they aren't referring to any kind of statistical majority among Americans. They're referring to the spectrum of opinion allowed by the political establishment, i.e. the range of views acceptable to the DNC and the RNC. The GOP establishment has embraced amnesty and has jumped aboard the liberal bandwagon on immigration generally, so with both parties championing illegals, anything contrary to open borders and amnesty has become "extremist" or "fringe," even though a majority of Americans oppose them.

When you get to define the limits of acceptable dissent, all definitions are self-referencing.

[ASA Vet]

Ted Cruz would be great as Senate Majority leader.

[spacewarp]

Sorry. I completely misread your post.

[knarf]

no problem

[JediJones]

Why in the world do current immigration policy and the advocates for more immigration constantly say we’re in need of both low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants? Who DON’T we need more of according to them? Do we not already have a country? You’d think we were trying to populate a barren desert for the first time judging by what they say.

We need more of everybody according to them because Democrats want to increase their non-white voting blocs and big business knows the more immigrants that come, the more the supply of labor goes up and the less they can pay their workers. We can’t stay a rich country if we continue “melding” with the third world. Our wages will end up averaging out with those of what the third-world immigrants are willing to accept until we’re just as poor as they are now.