For better or worse, the President’s executive action can and will only go so far. And while many leaders on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that it’s time for legislative reform, very vocal holdouts remain, protesting that executive action will “poison the well” for reform. Even among supporters of reform, the tune is often to “start with border security,” as one Senator-elect recently commented.
Yet we are hardly “starting” with security. Border security and enforcement have driven immigration policy for the better part of two decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act expanded mandatory detention and created re-entry bars for undocumented immigrants. The 2004 creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) added an anti-terrorism focus to immigration enforcement, aided by expanded powers under the Patriot Act. What’s more, President Obama’s just-announced executive action includes provisions to continue the surge of resources pumped into the border to manage this summer’s influx of migrant children.
DHS’ FY15 budget is more than $60 billion, nearly double 2004’s $36.2 billion allocation. Of the current budget, its two enforcement agencies ―US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement― get $18 billion. That is more than 15 times the spending level of their predecessor, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, at the last big reform in 1986. By comparison, the combined budgets of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are $14.4 billion.
To date, the administration has returned and removed a record two million undocumented immigrants, earning Obama the nickname “deporter-in-chief” among unhappy advocates. And while President Obama’s executive action will provide deportation relief for up to five million people, it will also further centralize border security, continuing to crack down on illegal immigration at the border.
Yet as security spending at the border is on the rise, the number of illegal crossings continues to fall. Net migration from Mexico fell to zero between 2005 and 2010 for a variety of reasons, some recession-related, but signs point to it staying at that level despite a strengthening US economy. In 2011, border arrests were at the lowest levels the nation has seen since 1972. An even as activity at the border spiked in recent months as violence ravaged Central America, the number of child migrants apprehended has declined sharply as of August.
Recent data strongly suggest that Americans have noticed the results yielded by enforcement efforts of recent years.
The 2014 Chicago Council Survey of US public opinion recorded the lowest level of concern over immigration since it began polling on the issue two decades ago. Today, an all-time-low of 47 percent of Americans prioritize controlling and reducing illegal immigration as a “very important” policy goal, down from a peak of 72 percent in 1994, according to the survey. Furthermore, only 39 percent feel that large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the US are a “critical threat,” compared to a 1994 peak of 72 percent.
Today, Americans feel more threatened by other issues. Chicago Council Survey respondents put cyber attacks, international terrorism, and drug-related violence near the top. They cite job protection, reducing US dependence on foreign oil, and reducing the spread of nuclear weapons as critical foreign policy goals.
It’s time for Congress to consider a new strategy that recognizes Americans’ policy priorities.
On the heels of executive action, this country’s lawmakers should look beyond security, focusing instead on the other, badly neglected items needed to fix our broken immigration system and boost the economy: updating outdated visa queues and quotas to create a world-class skilled workforce, developing a workable legal entryway for lower skilled migrant workers, and providing a path to legal status and even citizenship for millions now living in the shadows.
There is a tremendous opportunity for the 114th Congress if it focuses on what it can do instead of what it wants to block. This is the place to start.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy.
The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion.
The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.
At the June 25-26 Bahrain Peace to Prosperity Workshop, Jared Kushner presented the first component of a U.S. peace plan for the Middle East and emphasized the U.S. commitment to the Palestinian people. The stated goal of the Peace to Prosperity plan is “to empower the Palestinian people to build a better future for themselves and their children.” But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?
Approval rates for Moon Jae-in are sliding, but his North Korea policy is not one of primary drivers.
In early February 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following President Trump’s October 2018 (and the Obama administration’s July 2014) accusations that Russia was failing to comply with the treaty. Russia withdrew from the treaty the next day.
Findings from a February 2019 Chicago Council on Global Affairs general public survey and a December 2018 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of International Relations (IR) scholars around the world illustrate how these different populations perceive the collapse of the INF Treaty.
The foreign policy elite and the general public have long viewed the potential threat of China very differently. That gap may may now be in decline.
Despite expectations for the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, their recent summit in Hanoi ended with no agreement toward denuclearization. With that in mind, we asked our panel of foreign policy experts whether the United States should continue to focus primarily on denuclearization, or shift to arms control and non-proliferation.
The Council’s Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy is launching a series of flash polls to share expert insights on policy debates driving today's news.
At a Middle East conference this month in Warsaw, Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and Mideast adviser, said that the administration will unveil its much-vaunted Middle East peace plan after the April 9 Israeli elections.
The Trump administration has taken a hard line on China, but has failed to convince the American public or many allies to follow suit. Instead, publics around the world now see the United States as a major threat.
Recent surveys about the political crisis in Nicaragua
President Trump's demand that South Korea dramtically increase its burden sharing is uniting South Korean across the politica and age spectrum.
Publics in South Korea and Japan agree on the problems that need to be resolved, but there's little optimism they can find solutions.
In recent years, partisanship has become a major factor in foreign policy attitudes in the Chicago Council Surveys; not so long ago opinions on foreign policy seemed immune to partisan impulses. Here are seven striking examples from the 2018 Chicago Council Survey.
It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.
As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.
President Trump pulled the United States out of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations last year. But a majority of Americans seem to wish he hadn’t done that.