January 15, 2013 | By Dina Smeltz

Home Deport

Last week several papers reported that President Obama will seek a comprehensive, not incremental, immigration reform package in his second term and he doesn't want to carry the legacy of Deporter in Chief.  Here in the Midwest, people are evenly divided on whether a comprehensive or piecemeal approach is best, and they think that carrying out more deportations would be less effective than creating a pathway to citizenship and imposing fines on businesses that hire unauthorized workers.  We know, because the Chicago Council released results from a Midwestern survey on immigration late last year as part of a task force on immigration. 

The Chicago Council report reveals that few Midwesterners are aware that immigration levels have been decreasing and that most immigrants in the Midwest today are here legally.  Analysis showed a clear need for more accurate information to move public opinion forward on immigration reform.  Most of those who are aware the unauthorized immigration is decreasing and that most immigrants in the Midwest are here legally are likely to be open to immigration reform.  Those who sense that Midwestern businesses have difficulty finding job candidates with US citizenship are also more open to reform.

While our published report highlights these findings, for lack of space we were unable to share all of them.  So I'll do that here.  In the current debate, skeptics of immigration reform worry that there has not been enough enforcement.  For their part, six in ten (62%) Midwest residents believe that carrying out more arrests and deportations are at least somewhat effective in dealing with "illegal" immigration. But at least seven in ten think that increasing border security (73%) creating a pathway to citizenship (73%) and imposing new fines on businesses that hire unauthorized immigrants (81%) are at least somewhat effective.

Immigrant advocates want a more selective strategy for deportations to focus on immigrants with a criminal record.  More Midwest residents endorse (48%) than oppose (27%) deporting unauthorized immigrants who are convicted of a crime over those who have families in the US and do not have a criminal record.  But one in four (24%) have not heard enough to give an opinion. Asked about the President's stopgap Executive Order that "halts the deportation of some illegal immigrants if they came here before age 16, have been in the country for five years, have no criminal record, are in school or have a high school diploma, or have been honorably discharged from the military," 46 percent agree with halting deportations for the DREAMers and 24 percent disagree.  But one in three (29%) have not heard enough to give an opinion.  

Reform activists think that the administration has not done enough to publicize its enforcement record, and given the public's lack of knowledge about recent immigration trends and policies, it is probably unaware of the administration's enforcement achievements (see the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute's report on this, which shows that the USG is spending more into immigration agencies than other law enforcement agencies combined). Obviously, there is a long way to go before an immigration deal is reached, and enforcement will have to be a major element.  But in terms of public support, knowledge and awareness are key.  Accurate information on the current levels of unauthorized immigration, the economic costs and benefits of immigrant labor for local businesses and the record number of deportations enacted in the past year could help pave the way for public support to immigration reforms, whether comprehensive or incremental.


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.


| By Jack Benjamin

6 Ways in Which Liberal and Moderate Democrats Diverge on Key Issues

Democratic primary season is well under way, highlighted by recent debates and battleground fundraising by the large field of presidential hopefuls. As candidates deliver their pitch to voters, party supporters are not in lockstep on every issue.

| By Ruby Scanlon

The Generational Divide Over Climate Change

America’s young and old are split on what to do about climate change, presenting a major hurdle for the country’s youth to attain serious and immediate action.

| By Bettina Hammer

Americans Aren't Fans of Arms Sales

The United States has long been the tops arms supplier in the world. Yet public opinion data shows that Americans aren’t fans of U.S. arms sales.

| By Bettina Hammer

Little Admiration for the United States among MENA Publics

Most Americans believe that respect and admiration for the United States are instrumental in achieving US foreign policy goals. But a new poll finds publics in the Middle East and North Africa continue to view the United States unfavorably. 

| By Bettina Hammer

Peace to Prosperity Misses the Mark with Palestinians

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. But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?

| By Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm

Scholars vs the Public: Collapse of the INF Treaty

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.