Are Trump's immigration views out of the mainstream? (Survey says No)

Washington Examiner ^ | 8/16/15 10:53 PM | BYRON YORK

[xzins]

Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate's leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump's positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics.

"Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants 'Have to Go,'" read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on "Meet the Press." "They have to go," Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. "We either have a country or we don't have a country." At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

Some of Trump's presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. "Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we'll let some of them come back," Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. "I just hope we don't go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he's going to take all of us with him if we don't watch it."

But are Trump's views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public's views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.

The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:

1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.

7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.

Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven.

The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump. Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a "small number" of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent.

"Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse," Broockman and Ahler conclude.

Trump's immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It's probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump's position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump's immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[C210N]

Chris Christie spin about ‘the wall’ this morning, bad-mouthing the concept by saying people could go over, under, around, or through it.

Now, Chrispy doing that would be a sight to behold!

[Personal Responsibility]

So 43% of respondents chose the top 4 options (all “greatly increase” options”) while 56% chose the final 3 options (reduce options) and they say TRUMP is out of the mainstream?

The author even goes so far as to say the final option is the “most draconian”. I’d argue it’s the completely open borders that’s the most draconian to the American people of the options.

[knarf]

I'm going to stop reading all of these ... "Is Trump ... " .... type of threads because all they provoke are the comments that agree with Trump

Maybe I'll just mark the sources and put them in my "provocateur" folder

[expatguy]

A Snickers bar and a bus ticket to Tijuana.

[Dr.Deth]

Just heard top of the hour news. It agitates me increibly because they lie lie lie.

News: "Donald Trump plans to end birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the US Constitution"

This is a lie. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This could not be more obvious.

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US over and above arrest and deportation as an illegal alien. Being born on US soil of a person without jurisdiction does not confer citizenship.

This is exactly why the Constitution was written in plain language for the citizen to understand. This is also why laws are written in gobbledygook legalese that means whatever a lawyer decides.

[xzins]

Do you remember John Belushi in ‘Blues Brothers’ dancing in the church when he ‘saw the light’? Back flips, cart wheels, splits...even now when I think about it, I think “Belushi is sort of fat”.

It would be fun to see Christie merely ‘spin’.

[Resettozero]

Sounds great! For a start...

[xzins]

On the border issue, either agree with Trump...or be wrong. :>)

[Resettozero]

I'm going to stop reading all of these ... "Is Trump ... " .... type of threads because all they provoke are the comments that agree with Trump Maybe I'll just mark the sources and put them in my "provocateur" folder

Good idea. Then what?

[Lurkinanloomin]

What is so hard about being honest by these people?!!

---

They have been paid enormous amounts of money to betray the citizens of this country and favor citizens of other countries who broke into our country.

Some dare call it TREASON.

[Democrat_media]

Yes Americans and freepers understand that illegals are destroying the USA. And that's without most people even beginning to understand how immigrants legal and illegal vote for leftist causes moving the country to the left (bigger government etc.).

It's amazing. I tried explaining that to many on here (the Ann Coulter thesis of immigration Trumping all other issues) and I've only received a couple of agreements.Do people get this that democrats are importing voters that will turn the USA socialist?

[knarf]

Blindly vote for him .... you ?

[quantumman]

Some of these sclerotic media dinosaurs are starting to catch on slowly. York started out about as anti-Trump as Rich Lowry and George Will.

[envisio]

If someone considers the politically correct narrative that the media and the left constantly spew to be mainstream, then yes, it is out of the mainstream.
For those that think politically correctness is bull shavacky and will eventually kill us all, then no, it is not out of the mainstream.

[Jim from C-Town]

Exactly! There is noting Draconian about following existing law. Existing law calls for ALL the measures in the proposal sans a legislative removal of birthright citizenship. That already exists for children born here to legal diplomats, people actually here by invitation. It would certainly be easy to extend that to children born to a foreign interloper who illegally entered the country intent on establishing an illegitimate claim to American benefits.

[JudyinCanada]

Carson is the perfect VP. His personality compliments either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

[nikos1121]

He needs to increase his security. Takes guts to come out like he has.

[Resettozero]

Don’t understand your question/comment.

Do you mean would I vote for DT were he the Republican Presidential nominee? I would consider doing so.

[Starboard]

Liberals have a way of getting people to abandon common sense and embrace absurd, costly, and damaging things. They are masters of manipulation. At last someone (Trump) is giving voice to common sense and the preservation of our way of life. Like him or not, he is performing an invaluable service by airing mainstream concerns.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with you completely the wall is both a practical necessity which is indispensable and a metaphor for a commitment and follow through to police the borders and the airports etc.

But absent from the Trump's report is a commitment to e-verify beyond just mentioning it -yes, I understand that there is a general provision elsewhere in the document which calls for the enforcement of laws but I am also informed that e-verify is voluntary under current law.

Along with birthright citizenship, the draw of employment must be eliminated if we are ever to get real control over the borders because the greatest draw is not, as Trump suggests, birthright citizenship but employment. As far as I can tell, there is no call to action in the Trump document to prosecute employers who hire illegals. That is a grave deficiency in an otherwise outstanding series of proposals.