May 30, 2013 | By Dina Smeltz

They're Coming to America

Immigration reform is on the move: a comprehensive immigration reform bill, S. 744, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21 by a vote of 13-5, with a full Senate vote expected to take place this summer.  A recent op ed in the New York Times noted that although the "hard-core opponents of reform will continue to throw all they've got" against the immigration bill, "every day of movement in the committee process is a rebuke to the politics of defiant stalemate."

While this forward movement is positive, there are still opponents in the House that could throw a wrench into the process—and many of those congressional opponents are backed by Republican voters who share objections to a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) measure and the path to citizenship.

A nationwide survey conducted by The Chicago Council last month reveals broad public support for some variation of immigration reform, as do many other recent polls.  But there are also clear partisan differences among the American public, with far more Republicans than Democrats or Independents preferring deportation over a path to citizenship for undocumented workers in the United States.

Majority Does Not Favor Deportation, but Views Differ on Citizenship for Workers

When asked which of four options comes closest to their views about undocumented immigrants who are currently working in the United States, only three in ten (31%) Americans believe undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and leave the United States.

Of the rest, one in four (25%) says undocumented ("illegal" in the question wording) workers should be allowed to stay in their jobs and apply for US citizenship. An equal proportion (25%) says they should be allowed to stay in their jobs and eventually apply for US citizenship only if they pay a penalty and wait a number of years—similar to the legislation currently under debate, which requires a long probationary period, a fine, and repayment of back taxes. Another 16 percent say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in their jobs with work permits, but not be allowed to apply for US citizenship.

Immigration is one of the few key foreign policy issues on which there are stark partisan differences. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or Independents to say that all illegal immigrants should be required to leave their jobs and the United States (48% Republicans, 20% Democrats, 31% Independents). They are less likely than other partisans to support allowing undocumented workers to stay in their jobs and to apply for US citizenship without conditions (12% Republicans, 36% Democrats, 25% Independents) (Figure 1).

At the same time, there also have been some key shifts in Chicago Council results that signal the overall public’s readiness for immigration reform. Polling trends show that Americans’ concern over undocumented immigrants in the United States has fallen dramatically over the past 18 years. Additionally, more Americans now believe that the United States, rather than Mexico, should take the lead in dealing with illegal immigration.

More Americans Now Think the US, Not Mexico, Should Be Responsible for Illegal Flows

The nationwide 2012 Chicago Council Survey showed that for the first time in Chicago Council Survey history, only a minority (40%) of Americans considered immigration a critical threat to the US. Public perceptions of immigration as a critical threat declined a staggering 32 points over the course of eighteen years (Figure 2).

Perception of Critical Threat of Immigrants and Refugees[/caption] In addition, more Americans now than in 2004 want to place the onus on the United States to deal with undocumented immigration flows. Six in ten Americans across partisan divides (57% overall) say that the United States should be more responsible for dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants entering the country. This is up twelve percentage points from 2004, when a slight majority thought that Mexico should be more responsible for dealing with unauthorized immigration (50%, compared to 40% now) (Figure 3).  

US/Mexico Responsibility by Issue[/caption] Opinion is less decisive on which country should bear responsibility for illegal immigration from countries other than Mexico entering the United States through Mexico (the question did not specify particular countries). A slight majority believes this burden should lie with the United States, though nearly as many think Mexico should be accountable (52% US, 45% Mexico). When asked the same question in 2004, opinion was more evenly divided (48% Mexico, 46% US).

American Impressions of Undocumented Immigrant Flows Are Exaggerated

When asked their impressions over the past year, half (50%) of the public says that illegal immigration has increased over the past year, including 64 percent of Republicans and half of other partisan groups. These impressions overstate actual inflows of undocumented immigration. Recent reports have highlighted that inflows of unauthorized immigration nationwide have flattened to net-zero in the past few years, meaning that more Mexican immigrants are leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around.

Those who perceive that illegal immigration flows have either declined or stabilized over the past year have a much more positive image of Mexican immigrants living in the United States as well as immigration reform—underscoring the potential power of accurate information.

Immigration reform gained momentum in the United States after the 2012 presidential election, when the Hispanic vote helped to swing the election conclusively toward President Obama, and only 27 percent of Hispanics voted for Romney.  This sounded a wake up call for the Republican party, and many reform advocates are hopeful that GOP self-interest will sway its leadership to embrace change to remain competitive at the national level.  We'll see what the summer vote brings.


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 Dina Smeltz

The Foreign Policy Blob Is Bigger Than You Think

The Blob isn't just science fiction. When it comes to US foreign policy, its reach is far and wide with wide swaths of agreement between foreign policy elite and the general public. A new report from the Council and the Texas National Security Network explains.

| By Dina Smeltz

American Views of Israel Reveal Partisan and Generational Divides

Despite partisan differences on taking a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the status of US-Israel bilateral relations, overall trends from Chicago Council Survey data indicate that the relationship between the United States and Israel will continue to be viewed warmly by the American public.

#TBT: That Time We All Feared Chemical and Biological Weapons

In the spirit of Throw Back Thursday, Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at America’s foreign policy feelings of old. This week, we’re looking at Council data on Americans' perceptions of the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons in the late 90s and early 00s.

| By Dina Smeltz

​Polls Measure So Much More than Voting Intentions

The polling community took a lot heat following the failure of forecasters and data journalists to predict Trump's triumph in the 2016 election. But polls measure so much more than voting intentions says Council senior fellow Dina Smeltz.

| By Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura

Public Opinion in the US and China

There is perhaps no more important bilateral relationship in the world today than the one between the United States and China—the world’s two most important players in terms of economics and security. Where do the Chinese and American publics stand on key issues in the relationship, and what policies do they want to see their respective nations pursue worldwide? 

| By Diana C. Mutz

How Trade Attitudes Changed from 2012-2016

Trade was an important issue in the recent presidential election, but not in the way the media and many prominent observers have led us to believe.  The dominant narrative in the media was that disgruntled manufacturing workers whose jobs had been sent overseas emerged, understandably, as trade’s strong opponents, thus making Trump with his strong anti-trade rhetoric their natural ally.

Who Run the World? Foreign Policy Attitudes on Women and Girls

In partnership with the New America Foundation, the 2016 Chicago Council Survey included two questions developed to provide better insight about the importance of promoting women's rights and women's participation in societies around the world. 

This Presidential Election Was All about Identity, Not Qualities and Issues

Donald Trump just pulled off one of the most stunning upsets in American political history, capturing the presidency last Tuesday night. How did it happen? This election was all about identity politics, with Trump able to connect with non-college whites, especially white men without a college degree.

| By Dina Smeltz

The US-Russian Relationship

The 2016 Chicago Council Survey partnered with the Levada Analytical Center in Moscow to ask Americans and Russians how they feel about each other and—more importantly—each other’s government. 

| By Richard C. Eichenberg

Gender Difference in Foreign Policy Opinions: Implications for 2016

There are three patterns in American politics that take on special significance in 2016: the gender divide in Presidential elections; the low support for Donald Trump among women; and the growing discussion in the foreign policy community about the inclusion of women in the policy process. Nonresident fellow Richard Eichenberg explores the extent of gender difference in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey data and assesses the relevance of any differences to this year’s presidential election.