Avoiding The Immigration Trap

As someone who has worked on immigration and border security issues for more than 20 years, serving in senior roles in the U.S. Senate, the DHS, and the White House, I had a front-row seat as immigration became the most polarizing policy debate in the country and consumed our politics. 

During the Biden administration, I was in Del Rio, Texas, when 15,000 Haitian migrants overran the Border Patrol and camped out under a bridge, one of a number of  chaotic scenes at the U.S. southern border from 2021 to 2024. I helped craft commonsense policies that in 2024 brought illegal border crossings to their lowest levels since before the 2020 election. 

But by then, already three years into the administration, it was simply too late. President Biden had overseen the largest surge in migration in modern history, fueled by pent-up demand from COVID, a thriving industry helping migrants cross the Darien Gap, and, importantly, ill-advised policy decisions taken in the first days of the administration to fulfill campaign promises made to the far left. By early 2024, much of the public had already concluded that Democrats could not be trusted to secure the border.

But what’s happening today in Minneapolis and other cities across the country goes well beyond anything we’ve seen before—a lawless campaign designed to sow fear in immigrant communities and intimidate Americans opposed to President Trump’s immigration agenda. Masked DHS personnel are entering the homes of U.S. citizens without search warrants and detaining them for days; children are again being separated from their parents; and innocent U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights are being beaten, pepper-sprayed, and gunned down on our city streets.

Many Americans are asking themselves why the only options on immigration policy presented by our political parties seem to be a choice between the recurring chaos at the border of the Biden years or the Trump administration’s callous and brutal immigration enforcement campaign in American cities. In the eyes of voters, the Democratic and Republican parties seem to approach immigration politics like a zero-sum game—one in which treating immigrants and immigrant communities in a civilized manner is inherently at odds with securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws in the interior of the United States. This is a disingenuous, and false, dichotomy that fosters a vicious circle of outrage on both sides that only benefits the extremes in each party and perpetuates the deep dysfunction of our immigration system.

It’s hard to imagine today, but immigration was once an issue that divided both political parties. In 2007, when the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act championed by President George W. Bush failed to advance in the Senate, 12 Republican senators voted for the bill and 16 Democrats voted against it. In 2013, 68 senators, including 14 Republicans, voted to advance President Obama’s immigration-reform legislation—an effort that failed when the Republican speaker of the House refused to bring it to a vote, where it would have almost certainly passed.

Over the past decade, we’ve witnessed a sea change in the politics of immigration driven by extremes on the left and the right, each with its own vested interest in keeping the status quo in place. As I’ve noted elsewhere, both sides now frame immigration as a stark moral issue. Some on the left believe we have an obligation to provide protection and opportunity to all migrants arriving from disadvantaged countries. Some on the right argue that unlawfully crossing the border is a crime and therefore all illegal immigrants are immoral criminals. 

The reality is that immigration is far more complicated than either of these reductionist approaches suggests. Policymakers on both sides are captured by extreme elements in their parties and have failed to provide voters with solutions.

The U.S. Congress has been complicit, failing to update our immigration laws for more than 30 years even as our immigration system has become more and more broken.

Voters’ views on immigration are malleable

A key contributing factor is that public polling on immigration is incredibly malleable, leading to self-reinforcing echo chambers. This has allowed extremes on the political left and right to produce polls that “show” public support for policy positions that are completely at odds with those of their critics across the aisle. 

To better understand the full picture, The States Forum commissioned a poll to gauge the underlying popularity of policies untethered from partisan labels. The polling shows that voters have nuanced views not reflected in slogans or black-and-white choices. In the poll, we asked a wide range of straightforward questions—for example, whether individuals who are here illegally should be deported, or whether state and local jurisdictions should share information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about illegal immigrants who commit crimes in their jurisdictions. 

We then followed up with respondents who said yes or no to the original question by presenting mitigating or aggravating factors, such as whether the individuals here illegally had U.S. citizen families, had been in the U.S. for an extended period of time, or had committed crimes. These mitigating and aggravating factors meaningfully changed opinion within both supportive and opposing groups.  In some cases, up to 80% of people who initially held one view gave a different answer when presented with additional factors to consider. The lesson is important—when voters are presented with more detailed information about our immigration system they intuitively understand that immigration issues are not black-and-white but rather full of nuance.

For example, 58% of respondents in our poll said that individuals who entered the U.S. illegally should have an opportunity to gain legal status. When the people who agreed with this position were asked whether they would still agree if the individual in question were convicted of a felony or violent crime, more than three-quarters of respondents changed their minds. 

Conversely, 61% of respondents in our poll said that individuals who entered the United States illegally should be deported as quickly as possible. When those who agreed with that assertion were then asked whether they would have the same answer if the individuals in question had lived in the U.S. for decades, had U.S. citizens in the family, or had not committed any other crimes, roughly 4 in 10 changed their minds.

It may seem as if voters are a moving target on immigration, but in reality they are thoughtful and compassionate. Their responses reflect the fact that, once you consider immigration policy in any depth, the issue gets complicated fast. This complexity also masks the fact that there’s more common ground than one might think.

Neither party should feel comfortable with the results 

The poll has some clear warning signs for both political parties. First, independent voters don’t trust either party to reform our immigration system. When asked which party they trusted more to reform our immigration laws, 40% of independent voters chose neither party, compared to 30% who chose Democrats and 23% who chose Republicans. This is a significant change from polls early last year, which showed that Independents trusted Republicans more than Democrats after the chaotic border scenes of the first three years of the Biden Administration. The leadership of both parties should be concerned given how central independent voters have become to winning national elections.

Second, voters generally supported interior enforcement efforts—particularly when presented with clarifying questions. Most respondents believe that individuals who are here illegally should be removed—particularly if they have committed other crimes. A strong bipartisan majority (70%) opposed sanctuary policies that prevent state and local governments and police forces from sharing information about migrants who commit crimes with ICE, particularly for individuals who commit violent crimes or felonies. However, support for sharing information drops significantly—roughly one-third of respondents who initially agreed changed their minds—if the individual in question was arrested, but not convicted of a crime, while support for not sharing information also drops significantly if the individual in question committed a violent crime or a felony. And exactly 50% of respondents supported ICE’s current efforts to find and remove people who are in the United States illegally. The partisan divide was stark in this question, however, with Republicans (79%) agreeing and Democrats (70%) opposing.  Independents were more split (40% agreed). A majority of voters also opposed the deployment of non-immigration personnel, such as the National Guard, FBI, and DEA, to support ICE’s efforts.

Third, a majority of voters believe that individuals who are fleeing persecution or torture should be allowed to claim asylum in the United States, particularly at ports of entry. Support for asylum eroded significantly when respondents were asked whether individuals who crossed illegally between ports of entry, or who transited multiple countries where they could have claimed asylum (something the vast majority of people who cross illegally have done), should be allowed to claim asylum at the border. 

Lastly, voters generally supported providing additional legal options for immigration. A substantial majority of respondents believed that people who are here illegally, have not committed any crimes, and have strong ties to their communities, should be allowed to legalize their status. And more than two-thirds of voters—including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans—support more legal opportunities for those seeking to come to the United States to work or reunite with family.

Voters support nuanced immigration measures 

It’s no surprise that the public’s views about immigration can change when they are provided with more information. People cross the border to make a better life for themselves and their families—an act that many voters are ready to call a crime until they learn more about the individual. The desire to resettle here also resonates with many voters given the United States’ long history as a nation of immigrants. 

A functioning immigration system would quickly determine whether people who cross the border have a legal basis to stay in the United States, so we could quickly remove those who do not. Owing to Congress’s inability to update our immigration laws or provide adequate resources to support the current system, right now it can take years for immigration cases to be adjudicated. During that time, many illegal immigrants develop strong ties to their communities—working and owning businesses, marrying U.S. citizens and having children, joining churches and participating in community activities. Others commit crimes or become dependent on government programs and services, fueling outrage.

Our polling shows that the details of an immigrant’s circumstances can transform voters’ views. Given the complexities, immigration policy is generally not black-and-white, but instead rife with gray areas. Unfortunately, these nuances are fundamentally at odds with our slogan-driven political discourse, which has increasingly been dominated by demagogues. So while we need to push back against those who demonize migrants and sow cruelty on our streets, we must also guard against forgetting the hard lessons learned during the Biden administration—especially how quickly illegal border crossings can spiral out of control when we aren’t fully committed to enforcement.

Renee Good and Alex Pretti’s horrific killings have the potential to be a watershed moment in this debate. Our poll showed strong overall support for interior enforcement, and more nuanced support for ICE’s mission, but it must be noted that the survey was conducted before those tragic events and the many clashes between ICE and the public in Minnesota. 

Subsequent public polling appears to show a significant reduction in support for ICE.  It’s too soon to know whether this reaction will be temporary, as is often the case with many high profile issues, or whether the administration’s assaults on protestors has touched a deeper nerve in the public. 

Regardless, the administration must stop putting American citizens in harm’s way and commit to ensuring that all ICE and Customs and Border Protection personnel follow the law and their own internal use-of-force policies when interacting with the public. 

The States Forum poll has clear takeaways for leaders at the  federal, state, and local levels.  

At the state and local level, the poll shows that a substantial majority of the public is generally opposed to sanctuary policies—even those that only shield individuals arrested for misdemeanors from being referred to ICE. Refusing to refer people to ICE who may be a threat to the community is not a position that aligns with the majority of voters; it’s a policy elected officials in relevant locales should reconsider. 

As state and local leaders consider how to react to the Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement, they should know that the public is generally supportive of interior enforcement, as well as ICE’s efforts to identify and remove individuals who are in the United States illegally. At the same time, state governors can—and indeed must—push back against this administration’s chaotic lawlessness. 

There is no place in America for masked law-enforcement personnel abducting people from the streets; anyone following lawful orders should have to identify themselves to the public. But governors should keep in mind that not enforcing our immigration laws is exchanging one kind of lawlessness for another, and that refusing to share information about illegal immigrants who commit crimes may make us all less safe.

For the federal government and Congress, our poll is just the latest among many that show the public is looking for a middle ground. This translates into strong public support for securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws in the interior of the United States, but also for providing more legal options for people to come here to work or reunite with family, and legal status for people who crossed the border illegally but who are now contributing members of our society. 

The States Forum poll shows that a commonsense approach to immigration policy—one that recognizes the need to enforce immigration laws as well as provide lawful pathways for those seeking to enter and remain in the United States—resonates with voters. As such, reasonable policy proposals should, at minimum, include the following elements: 

1. Strong border enforcement measures designed to stop illegal entries. 
2. Interior enforcement that focuses on people who present a threat to the community. 
3. State and local jurisdictions should share information with ICE about illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes or felonies in their jurisdictions. 
4. People who entered the United States illegally who have lived here for an extended period of time, who have not committed any other crimes, and who are gainfully employed, should be allowed to apply for legal status. 
5. Individuals fleeing persecution or torture should be able to request asylum from abroad or at ports of entry in a safe and orderly manner. 
6. More legal opportunities for people to come to the United States to reunite with family or contribute to the U.S. economy. 

It has taken decades for our immigration system to reach its deplorable level of dysfunction, and we will not fix it overnight. We should be angry at the wanton cruelty and political violence being perpetrated by the Trump administration on American cities. But as elected leaders at every level of government debate alternatives to the vindictiveness of this administration’s policies, they should avoid the temptation to swing the political pendulum from one extreme to the other. 

Such overreactions are, quite simply, one of the main reasons for this mess to begin with. Instead, it is important to do the hard work of governing and consider pragmatic policy solutions that address a bipartisan crisis years in the making. As this polling shows, a majority of the country will support this effort.