June 11, 2015 | By Craig Kafura

The Republican Divide on Immigration

The Republican Divide on Immigration
 
There are over a dozen Republican candidates in the running for their party's nomination, whether or not they've formally announced. On most topics, they present a unified front, attacking the Obama administration's foreign and domestic policies.
 
But immigration has proven to be a far more divisive topic. The three leading Republican hopefuls for the White House—Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio—are putting far-flung stakes in the ground on immigration, each expecting that his distinctive position will be key to the GOP nomination.
 
Why has immigration divided the Republican field? The answer lies in the different immigration factions within the Republican Party.
 
The 2014 Chicago Council Survey covered both the public (fielded May 6-29, 2014) as well as a wide swath of what would be considered 'elites' (fielded May 16-August 1, 2014). The latter surveyed 668 opinion leaders, both policy experts (those working in Congress or Executive-branch agencies, think-tank fellows, academics) and interest groups (business, religious organizations, NGOs). The results show that the Republican Party has split into three distinct groups on immigration.
 
Jeb Bush's approach to the nomination has been to win the 'invisible primary' by gaining the backing of Republican elites. While other Republican candidates have moved to the right on immigration, his long-moderate immigration stance has remained so. Rather than appealing to the GOP base, he hopes to persuade it, and said just that in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly. That matches the survey evidence: among Republican opinion leaders, only 20 percent identify controlling and reducing illegal immigration as a very important goal, and only 16 percent say that the prospect of large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the United States represents a critical threat.
 
Scott Walker stands at the other end. Not only has the Wisconsin governor repudiated past statements in support of immigration reform, he’s also suggested decreasing legal immigration into the United States. While that stance won’t fly in a general election, Walker's newer, more nativist stance on immigration is tailor-made for the Tea Party portion of the Republican base. The data agree: 80 percent of those who identify themselves as Tea Party Republicans say controlling and reducing illegal immigration is a very important goal. Tea Party Republicans are also more threatened by the prospect of large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the United States: 82 percent labeled it a critical threat. For this faction of the Republican Party, immigration looms as a larger threat than more mainstream concerns such as Iran’s nuclear program, nuclear proliferation, and international terrorism. And while Tea Party Republicans are a minority within their party, making up only 21 percent of Republicans overall, they are a vocal and influential minority.
 
In between Bush and Walker stands Marco Rubio. Rubio, once part of the Group of Eight in the Senate working towards comprehensive immigration reform, has retreated from his past reformism but has not embraced a Walker-esque nativism. His target is in the middle, appealing to immigration-skeptical (but not immigration-hostile) Republicans. Their views fall neatly in between the views of opinion leaders and the Tea Party. Roughly half (49%) of non-Tea Party Republicans see immigration as a critical threat, and while a majority (56%) says controlling and reducing illegal immigration is a very important goal, they do not rate it as highly as their Tea Party copartisans.
 
It's worth noting that these divisions on immigration don’t appear among Democrats. Among both Democratic opinion leaders as well as the public, immigration does not rank as a serious threat, nor does controlling immigration rate as a very important priority.
 
Their field reflects that consensus. Hillary Clinton, running as the predominant candidate in a far smaller field, has resolutely backed President Obama's executive action policies on immigration. This move, reflecting mainstream Democratic thought rather than a hard turn to the left, has largely boxed out other Democratic candidates. Consequently, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley’s attempt to use immigration as an intra-party wedge issue is unlikely to work.
 
Democrats’ unified front on immigration also cuts back on the amount of backtracking candidates will need to do for the general election, making their stances more credible with the Latino electorate.
 
In contrast, just as Republicans now are maneuvering to target their base, whoever emerges from the primary’s battle royale will have to repeat the process in reverse, tacking back to the middle to appeal to the broader American public.
 
The one candidate who wouldn’t? Jeb Bush. As the candidate aiming to change his party’s mind on immigration, rather than changing his own, he’ll have an easier and more consistent route to appeal to Latino voters, especially in his home state of Florida. But first, he’ll have to win over his party. 

About

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.

Archive

| By Dina Smeltz, Craig Kafura

Climate Concerns on the Rise

While Democrats and Republicans are at opposite ends of the spectrum in prioritizing climate change, Chicago Council Surveys going back to 2002 have shown longstanding public support for an international treaty to address the problem.


Americans Hungry for Food Information

There is a renaissance in America’s interest in food and, more specifically, how food is produced. A new Chicago Council poll finds that contrary to the debate about hot-button issues like GMOs, antibiotics, and local food, the vast majority of Americans value food that is above all affordable, safe, and nutritious.

| By Karl Friedhoff, Dina Smeltz

Strong Asia Alliances, Divided Publics

New Council survey data shows that US relations with Japan and South Korea are strong. But mutual distrust between Japan and South Korea continues, even as the United States encourages strengthened relations in the face of a rising China.

| By Sara McElmurry

Calling a Vote before the Curtain Call

Soon-to-be-former Speaker John Boehner has shot down immigration advocates’ requests that he call a vote on immigration before he leaves Congress at the end of the month. But numbers from the 2015 Chicago Council Survey suggest that advancing a vote might not be a bad idea.


| By Karl Friedhoff

Meet the New South Korea

South Korea is no longer sitting back and absorbing North Korea's provocations. A look at attitudes on identity and reunification among South Korea's youth suggests that in the future this will become the norm, not the exception.

| By Craig Kafura

The Politics of the Iran Deal

Republicans have come out strongly against the Iran nuclear deal, and have also used it to slam their biggest Democratic rival for 2016, Hillary Clinton. But is the deal actually a problem for Clinton?




| By Craig Kafura

Americans Support Ending Cuba Trade Embargo

As the United States and Cuba continue to work towards a normalization of the relationship, results from the new 2015 Chicago Council Survey show that Americans favor lifting the trade embargo on Cuba and believe the proposed changes in US-Cuba relations will benefit both countries.