Beyond Political Polarization: Finding Common Ground on Immigration in the United States

The American public is not as polarized or as rigid in its attitudes towards immigration as we might think.

The U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris has once again brought immigration, and the sharp partisan divide over immigration, to the fore. Research by CMS affiliate Dr. Matthew Wright examines whether the American public is really as divided as U.S. political rhetoric would suggest.

Key Findings

• Despite what the extremist positions of many political leaders and pundits might suggest, the American public is not so polarized on immigration issues. Most Americans’ attitudes toward immigration are centrist. On the aggregate, most Americans have slightly positive views of immigration and immigrants.
• People’s preferences on immigration policy are motivated largely by civic values, which are widely-shared moral beliefs about what is desirable in the public realm, and their perception of how well a given policy aligns with civic values – not by feelings of economic or ethnocultural threat.
• Americans’ stances on immigration issues can change. Immigration attitudes change over time, and rhetorical framing strategies can increase support for specific policies.

---

Recommendations

• Politicians should adopt more pragmatic, centrist immigration policy positions. Few U.S. citizens support extremist policy measures. Political elites are often out-of-step with the majority of voters, even within their own party, on immigration.
• Advocates of immigration reform should emphasize how their proposed policies align with core American values. Value-based arguments are effective in shifting people’s attitudes on immigration. It can help to dive into policy details.

---

Implications for Current Events

Republican candidate Trump has made immigration and the allegedly deviant behaviours of immigrants the central issue of his campaign; Democratic candidate Harris has largely avoided discussing immigration. While the far-right outlook on immigration dominates the news cycle, research shows that it is far less popular among the American public.

Dr. Wright and his colleagues argue that centrist proposals for immigration reform that speak to core American values can win support from large majorities of voters. His research shows that a majority of Americans support legalizing some undocumented immigrants through the Dream Act and even admitting more immigrants, if selected for their ability to meet labour market needs, without necessarily sacrificing family-based immigration. Such proposals are likely to be more popular if framed as strengthening the U.S. economy and providing equal opportunity to law-abiding, hardworking people who are ready to integrate into American society.

---

About the Authors

Matthew Wright is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on political psychology and explores how political identities and values shape views on immigration, policy, and diversity. His recent books on these topics include Immigration in the Court of Public Opinion (with J. Citrin and M. Levy) and Immigration and the American Ethos (with M. Levy). He earned his BA from McGill University and his PhD from UC Berkeley. Before joining UBC, he was an Associate Professor of Government at American University in Washington, DC.

Nadia Almasalkhi is a doctoral candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. She is a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. She holds bachelor’s degrees in International Studies and Modern Languages (Arabic and French) from the University of Kentucky. Her current research studies the political integration and political transnationalism of Middle Eastern immigrants and diasporas.

---

This publication is part of the CMS Migration Insights Series. The research briefs synthesize peer-reviewed, published academic research by CMS affiliates.