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.
The Republican Divide on Immigration
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.
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.
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 the first time the Council asked Americans about their perceptions of various threats to the US and its interests.
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.
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?
Although President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to dump the Paris Agreement on climate change, calling it a “bad deal,” the 2016 Chicago Council Survey finds strong bipartisan support for US participation.
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.
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.
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.
New survey evidence suggests that leaders strongly support international engagement but substantially underestimate public support for international engagement, globalization, and immigration among the broader American public.
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.
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.
What are the most interesting results from the Council's annual survey of Americans’ views on foreign policy? Dina Smeltz, senior fellow on public opinion and foreign policy, shares her "top five" list of surprising findings from the 2016 Chicago Council Survey.
On October 6, 2016 the Chicago Council released the results of its 2016 Chicago Council Survey. Get the full report.
Karl Friedhoff takes a look at American attitudes on South Korea from data in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey.
Karl Friedhoff takes a quick look at American public opinion on North Korea in light of its 5th nuclear test.