The White House And Senators Work Together On Immigration Limits

This week marks a concerted effort between the White House executive branch staff working together with senators to refine a bill that will formalize the immigration quotas that have been discussed since before the presidential election during 2016.  Immigration Law Center sees this as a good opportunity to learn about the future changes in immigration policy.

Tal Kopan of CNN writes:

The Trump administration is working with two senators on a bill that would restrict and revamp some of the legal avenues for immigrating to the United States, sources confirm to CNN, but the bill remains a long way from potential passage in Congress.

Trump on border wall: ‘You have to be able to see through it’

The bill from Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia was introduced in February but will be re-introduced with some changes, Cotton’s office confirmed.

The original version of the bill cut back on what’s referred to as “chain migration,” ways of immigrating to the United States that are based on family or not based on skills. The bill would limit the types of family members of immigrants that can also be brought to the US to primarily spouses and minor children, would eliminate the international diversity visa lottery and limit the number of annual refugee admissions.

An administration official characterized the discussions as one of many efforts to work with lawmakers on potential pieces of immigration reform. Politico was first to report the talks.

The over-arching goal for the Cotton-Perdue bill, the official said, is to install a system where immigrants are allowed into the country based on their skills and contributions, as opposed to familial connections or a lottery.

“The bottom line here is that the President believes we should have a merit-based system of immigration in this country,” the official told CNN. “What the merit-based system would do is bring our immigration policy more in line with what’s good for American workers and taxpayers, so that’s the overarching goal, and that I’m sure is the driving force behind talks with Congress and these senators.”

GOP senators aim to cut legal immigration by half

The official acknowledged that it remains to be seen whether the White House goes all in to support a final version of the bill, which faces an uphill climb in Congress.

“I think we’re a long ways away,” the official said.

The President spoke about a desire for comprehensive immigration reform while flying to Paris Wednesday night as well.

“What I’d like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet,” Trump told reporters.

Perdue and Cotton’s offices both confirmed the senators continue to work on the “RAISE Act” but wouldn’t elaborate on details.

While a move to end chain migration was part of the ill-fated Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but died in the House in 2013, that bill was loaded with other side deals that helped pave the way for passage.

Trump admin to lawmakers: DACA in jeopardy

“To me it’s more of almost a political discussion vs. actual enactment or trying to enact policy,” said former Bush administration Homeland Security deputy James Norton, who now works as a strategist.

Rosemary Jenks, the vice president and director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that advocates limited legal immigration and supports the RAISE Act, said her group stands ready to support it, she said, but still lacks a clear feel for where the administration wants to go.

“(We’re) feeling a little bit more optimistic about some of them and pushing forward that much harder because it appears there may be an opportunity here and if there is, we want to be ready for it,” Jenks said.

In addition to the difficulty of building a bill that works for the many constituencies represented in both parties, the Senate calendar has proven daunting for lawmakers this year, who are still struggling to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, need to extend government funding by the end of September, hope to pass tax reform and need to pass a defense authorization.

A nasty fight over immigration reform could also scuttle efforts to pass government funding that includes money for Trump’s border wall.

“It has momentum in the sense that there are definitely people who have been working on immigration since day one,” Norton said, “but I think in terms of active legislation I think it has a very difficult road for it to go down to become law.”

original source

The post The White House And Senators Work Together On Immigration Limits appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

from Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/white-house-senators-work-together-immigration-limits/

Helpful Immigration Questions And Answers

With all the new changes in US Immigration laws, we thought this helpful Q&A from cleveland.com would help clear up some issues.  For more detailed and personal help just contact an immigration lawyer in Cleveland at immigrationlawctr.com.  Michael Sangiocomo writes:

Last Sunday, The Plain Dealer told the story of Jesus Lara Lopez, an undocumented worker who faces deportation next week after working in the United States for 16 years.

He is not a criminal and has been supporting his wife and four American-citizen children, working with the permission of immigration authorities. This spring he became one of thousands of immigrants swept up in the Trump administration’s directive to immigration authorities to deport most anyone in the country illegally.

Many readers asked why Lara Lopez didn’t just “sign up” or “get in line” to become a citizen during the years he has lived here. We sought some answers and found that there are no such options for undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Lara Lopez’ lawyer, David Leopold of Cleveland, said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security have the authority to allow people like Lara Lopez to stay until the immigration laws are revised.

But under the current system, an undocumented worker in the United States has no options to become legal. He or she would have to leave the United States and start the process to enter the country from the beginning, a process that could take decades or may not even be possible.

“Unauthorized immigrants who want to regularize their status in this country cannot just ‘get in line,'” according to the American Immigration Council, a non-profit group that aids immigrants.

“There are lines, but a large number of aspiring immigrants are not eligible to be in any of them,” the council’s website says. ” Even if a prospective immigrant does meet the formal requirements to immigrate, the wait can be very long if she or he is applying from countries that are currently oversubscribed.”

Barring a last-minute reprieve, Lara Lopez, who recently bought a house in Willard in Huron County, will be on a plane at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on July 18, for a one-way trip to Mexico City, leaving his wife and children behind.

Lara Lopez’ story about coming to America is not uncommon. He said his decision to come in 2001 was made out of desperation for a job that could help support his mother. His father had died when he was an infant and he had grown up poor, he said.

“I grew up with needs, my mother tried to help me move forward but I couldn’t, I grew up seeing my good mother suffering and I decided to come here where I am today,” he said in a translated email. “I didn’t have the privileges then that I have now. I had always heard about ‘El Norte, USA.’

“It was very difficult for me to get to this beautiful place that is full of opportunities, and I thank God for letting me be here in this place where I’ve been living for 16 years,” he continued.

Lynn Tramonte of America’s Voice, an immigration support group, said there were very few jobs in Chiapas, Mexico, where Lara Lopez grew up, and none that paid enough for him to support his family.

She said he had no real skills, such as carpentry or plumbing, and no way to learn them. She said it would be literally impossible for someone in his position to have gotten a visa to enter the U.S. legally.

“People in situations like that are desperate,” Tramonte said. “Their prospects are so bleak that they will risk their lives to come to the United States for a better life. They will travel through the hot desert, risking running into dangerous people, but they do it for themselves and their families. After all, none of us have a say in where we are born. It just happens. We are the lucky ones to be born here.”

The council offers a primer for the challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in the United States to become legal. Here’s a look at some relevant immigration facts and policies:

What are current ways that people can come into the methods of immigration into the United States on a temporary or permanent basis?

There are generally three different routes: employment, family reunification or humanitarian protection. Each is highly regulated.

* Employment-based immigration requires a U.S. employer to request specific foreign workers.

“To come to the United States for employment purposes–either temporarily or permanently–foreign workers must generally have a job lined up with an eligible employer who will sponsor them,” the website says. “An employer can request permission to bring in specific qualified foreign workers, but only if they meet the requirements, such as job skills and education level, and if the employer cannot find a qualified U.S. worker to take the job first. Most of the qualifying professions for permanent immigration require high levels of education and professional experience, such as scientists, professors, and multinational executives.

There are a limited number of temporary visas for highly skilled or internationally recognized workers. There are also temporary, seasonal opportunities for agricultural workers and certain other “less skilled” workers. In most of these cases, an employer must petition for the worker.”

Leopold noted that even the system for visas for workers to come to America for a limited amount of time to plant or harvest crops is flawed. He said the law does not allow enough of the visas to fill the needs.

In the case of Willard, farmers in Huron County find it difficult to hire American or migrant workers to plant and pick their crops, even for $18 an hour. Many of these and other jobs go unfilled in the county where the unemployment rate is 4 percent.

* Family-based immigration.

The website says family members in the U.S. can seek permission to bring in other family members, but these are subject to many regulations depending on the country of origin. In some cases, only certain relations can be used such as parents, sons or daughters. Sometimes the income of the sponsoring family member is a big factor and in all cases, there is a quota system to restrict the number of immigrants.

* Humanitarian protection

The website says the United States allows a limited number of refugees in for humanitarian reasons. These people must demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or national origin.” The number is reached very quickly.

How long is the wait for people who try to come in legally?

The website notes that there are always more people who want to immigrate to the United States than there are slots available. This results in significant backlogs for most family members and some workers hoping to enter the United States legally, with some immigrants from certain countries waiting decades.

“As of May 2016, for most countries, unmarried children of U.S. citizens must wait more than five years and siblings of U.S. citizens must wait more than 10 years” the website says. “People from countries with high levels of immigration to the United States–Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines–generally have longer waiting times. For example, married children of U.S. citizens from Mexico must wait more than 20 years for a visa to become available, and Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens currently wait about 25 years.”

What about the immigration lottery?

The website says: “If a person who wishes to immigrate to the United States does not qualify under the family, employment, or humanitarian systems, there may be one more legal path. The annual Diversity Visa program makes 55,000 green cards available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. People from Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, and other countries with higher levels of immigration to the United States are not eligible.”

To qualify, applicants must have a high school education and two years of job experience. Since millions of people around the world apply each year, the chances of obtaining a visa through the lottery are extremely low.

What about immigrants who marry an American citizen?

Leopold said that does not apply to people who entered the country illegally. Their option is to leave the United States and apply to enter the U.S., but they normally have to wait at least 10 years, even if they have an American spouse waiting for them. They could get a waiver if they can show that separation would cause severe stress, something difficult to prove.

The immigration website concludes that some people in foreign countries are simply not eligible for immigration through regular channels.

The post Helpful Immigration Questions And Answers appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

from Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/helpful-immigration-questions-answers/

Trump clarifies his immigration policy

Today, a new bill introduced by Repbulican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue gives additional insight on the Trump administration’s real immigration policy.  The bill would reduce the number of legal immigrations by 50% over the next 10 years and as one of the first formal immigration proposals of the administration, it shows that President Trump actually intends to fulfill some of his campaign promises on immigration policy.

Bessi Levin in Vanity Fair writes:

“The most public components of Donald Trump’s nativist agenda are also, somewhat reassuringly, the most symbolic. Yes, the president wants to build an expensive wall along the southern border to keep “rapists” and “criminals” from Mexico from illegally entering the country, but as even Republicans have pointed out, building a wall is just about the least effective way to secure the border. Life will go on, regardless of whether the president adds an extra foot or two of barbed wire to the eyesore that already stretches across several hundred miles of Texas, Arizona, and California. Trump also wants a figurative fence around the country, in the form of his executive order banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries, but said ban was always designed to be temporary. The president’s long-term ambitions to curtail immigration, meanwhile, have mostly flown under the radar: a plan dreamt up by the White House’s resident nationalists Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller to crack down on legal immigration.

Now, Trump’s endgame appears to be moving into public view. According to a new report from Politico, Miller and Bannon—the latter of whom apparently keeps reminders to himself to restrict immigration “scribbled on the walls of his office” like other people keep reminders to order more ink for the printer—have been working on a bill with Republican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue that would cut the number of legal immigrants coming into the U.S. by half, to 500,000, as of 2027. The bill is said to be a “revised and expanded” version of the RAISE Act that Cotton and Perdue presented in February and discussed with the president in March.

The lawmakers, along with Miller, Bannon, and Trump, argue that allowing lower-skilled immigrants into the country hurts job prospects and suppresses wages for American-born workers. In addition to wanting to restrict the overall number of legal immigrants, they want to shift to a merit-based system in which foreigners who are granted entry, for example, hold advanced degrees or demonstrate a particular “extraordinary ability” in their given field. That dovetails with the White House’s desire to “limit citizenship and migration to those who pay taxes and earn higher wages.” Last month, in a display of his infinite generosity, particularly toward those who haven’t “made a fortune,” Trump promised that legislation banning legal immigrants from coming into the U.S. if they were expected to rely on any kind of welfare would be coming “very shortly.”

The move will likely appeal to Trump’s base. Unfortunately, a restrictionist immigration policy could backfire for the same set of voters. In April, 1,470 economists wrote an open letter to the president explaining that, actually, the economy benefits from immigration, describing it as “not just a good thing” but “a necessity.” Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain have also argued that the economy gets a boost from cheaper labor. Mountains of evidence suggest native workers aren’t interested in the kind of grueling, seasonal, low-wage employment that is typically the domain of recent immigrants. Experts have warned that a crackdown on immigration could, for example, destroy the U.S. agriculture industry, whose workforce is disproportionally made up of foreigners.

Of course, wanting to drastically restrict legal immigration and actually getting a bill passed to do so are two very different things, and Team Trump faces a steep uphill battle, given that G.O.P. lawmakers like Graham and McCain are against it. There are also more pressing matters to attend to, including but not limited to: health care, tax reform, and avoiding a government shutdown in September. Building a border wall around the entire country might have to wait.”

original source

The post Trump clarifies his immigration policy appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

from Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/trump-clarifies-immigration-policy/

Public Opinion On Immigration Policy

At theimmigrationforum.com a recent article highlights the ongoing partisan controversy on revisions to the United States’ immigration policies.  As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump stirred emotions and used inflammatory proposals to sway conservatives to support him.  However current surveys show that the majority of Americans do not support the majority of his initiatives.

Original article:

As a candidate, Donald Trump promised a different approach to immigration policy. As president he is seeking congressional funding to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to hire thousands more immigration agents to arrest and deport immigrants in the U.S. Immigration agents are now, more than in recent times, routinely picking up and deporting immigrants with no criminal history who have lived and worked in the U.S. for many years.

Researchers have attempted to gauge public reaction to these initiatives through public opinion surveys. Overall public reaction so far has been negative, but the answers to questions about the administration’s immigration initiatives reveal a partisan divide.

One thing has not changed despite the wide swing in policy in recent months. The public has supported policy solutions that allow undocumented immigrants — most of whom have lived in the U.S. for many years — to remain in the U.S. and gain legal status if they meet certain conditions. Support for this idea crosses party lines in most surveys, with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all in favor.

This paper takes a look at public opinion surveys conducted by mainstream media and other sources since the November 2016 election. These polls have included questions about a path to earned legality for undocumented immigrants, about the administration’s deportation policies, and about other immigration-related actions.

General Views on Immigration and Illegal Immigration

Some of the surveys conducted since the November election have asked general questions to gauge public attitudes toward immigration and diversity, about the importance of immigration as an issue facing this country, about their concern over illegal immigration, and about President Trump’s performance on the immigration issue. In this time frame, the public has been somewhat more positive toward immigrants and immigration than in the past.

A Pew Research Survey in February 2017 asked respondents whether they believed “having an increasing number of many different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities in the United States makes this country a better place to live …” Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) said that diversity makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent said it makes the country a worse place to live, while 29 percent said it doesn’t make much difference. Democrats were more supportive of diversity — three-quarters (76 percent) said that growing diversity makes the country a better place to live, while half of Republicans (51 percent) thought so.

In April 2017, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll asked whether respondents thought that “immigration helps the United States more than it hurts, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps.” By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, respondents said that immigration helps more than hurts (60 percent vs. 32 percent). This is the largest margin since the questions was first asked in 2005.

In June 2017, the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll conducted in April to gauge differences between Americans living in rural, suburban and urban areas. Asked whether they thought that “immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work” or that “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing, and health care,” a majority of respondents overall (62 percent) said that immigrants helped strengthen our country. Urban dwellers were most positive (71 percent said that immigrants strengthen the country) while a plurality of rural residents (48 percent) took the positive view. Suburbanites were in between at 62 percent.

Shortly after the election, in November 2016, Quinnipiac University asked an open-ended question about what respondents thought should be President Trump’s top priority when he assumed office. Only 6 percent said immigration, with 1 percent saying building the border wall should be the top priority, and another 1 percent saying border security should be the top priority.

A poll by Politico and Harvard University conducted in December 2016 asked its nationwide sample of adults how serious a problem they thought it was that there were “currently millions of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.” For Trump voters, the presence of undocumented immigrants was a big deal — 90 percent of them thought it was a “very serious problem” or a “somewhat serious problem.” The general public overall was less concerned — 30 percent considered it a “very serious problem,” and an additional 27 percent thought it was a “somewhat serious problem.”

Treatment of Undocumented Immigrants

For more than a decade, public opinion surveys have been asking Americans how they feel about a proposal that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and eventually become citizens or remain in the U.S. with legal status but not citizenship. The questions have tracked policy ideas that have been part of actual immigration reform legislation Congress has considered but never passed. In general, the pattern in responses to these questions has been that the more detailed the question is (by including some of the proposed requirements — learning English, paying back taxes, passing a criminal background check, etc.), the more likely the public favors allowing undocumented immigrants to stay. Majority support for providing the opportunity for earned legal status or citizenship for the undocumented crosses party lines.

A different pattern emerges in opinion surveys conducted since the election of November 2016. President Trump’s initiatives to deport more undocumented immigrants yields a sharp partisan divide in responses. Unlike the idea of an opportunity for earned citizenship, which majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support, the Republican president’s deportation initiatives in most surveys draw overwhelming opposition from Democrats and enthusiastic support from Republicans. Independents fall between Democrats and Republicans but, in general, a majority of Independents have opposed the president’s deportation and other immigration initiatives.

Earned Legal Status

For more than a decade, the American people have supported proposals that will allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. The National Immigration Forum has documented this support in past reports summarizing public opinion surveys.[vi] Even as a new president has begun to enforce immigration laws more strictly, public support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay has not wavered. In most surveys conducted since the presidential election, support crosses party lines, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all supporting a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants to stay. Even respondents who said they were Trump supporters were supportive in the surveys breaking out that demographic.

The first chart above shows the level of support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. —with the opportunity either for citizenship or for legal status without citizenship. These data come from surveys conducted between November 2016 and March 2017 and show support broken down by party and among Trump supporters.

As the next chart indicates, this support has been steady for the past two years, through a campaign season and change in government marked by harsh immigration rhetoric. Public support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay actually has increased slightly.

Shortly after the election, Quinnipiac University conducted a survey in which it asked a sample of voters across the U.S. which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (72 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay. In this and other surveys, respondents are given the option to choose whether these undocumented immigrants should be allowed “to eventually apply for citizenship” (60 percent chose that option) or “to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship” (an additional 12 percent). Breaking this down by party affiliation, 90 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents, and 50 percent of Republicans supported allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and either apply for citizenship or to remain without the option of citizenship.[vii]

In the Politico-Harvard University poll conducted in December 2016, respondents were asked which approach to unauthorized immigrants came closest to their views. A majority (55 percent) said that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay — including 46 percent who favored eventual citizenship, provided the immigrants “meet certain requirements,” and another 9 percent who favored legal status but not citizenship.[viii]

A Quinnipiac University poll in January 2017 asked a sample of voters which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (68 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay “and to eventually apply for citizenship” (59 percent) or to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship (9 percent). By party affiliation, 86 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and just under half of Republicans (48 percent) supported allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. This was the last poll during this time frame in which support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. was below 70 percent.

In a CBS News poll conducted in January 2017, respondents were asked which came closest to their views about “illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S.” The top response, of 61 percent of respondents, was that they “should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and eventually apply for citizenship” (emphasis added). An additional 13 percent said they should be allowed to stay but not allowed to apply for citizenship (for a total of 74 percent favoring allowing them to stay). Democrats were most favorable toward allowing undocumented immigrants to stay (86 percent), followed by Independents (75 percent). A majority of Republicans (58 percent) also favored the path to citizenship or legal status.

Respondents in a February 2017 McClatchy-Marist poll were asked whether they “favor or oppose Congress providing a way for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the U.S. to gain legal citizenship if they learn English, pay fines, and have jobs that pay taxes.” More than three-quarters (80 percent) of respondents favored allowing undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship under those terms. Only 15 percent were opposed. Respondents of all party affiliations supported citizenship for undocumented immigrants in this poll — 87 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents. This survey found favor for the proposal even among Trump supporters (72 percent).

In another CBS News survey in mid-February 2017, respondents were asked which came closest to their views about “illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S.,” and only 23 percent overall favored requiring them to leave. A majority (60 percent) of respondents thought they should be allowed to “stay in the U.S. and eventually apply for citizenship.” An additional 13 percent thought that they should be allowed to “stay in the U.S. legally, but not be allowed to apply for citizenship,” for a total of 73 percent who favored allowing them to stay in the U.S. Respondents across party lines favored allowing undocumented immigrants to remain— including 51 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of Independents.

In a poll by CNN/ORC in March, respondents were asked which policy goal should be the government’s top priority in dealing “with the issue of illegal immigration.” The top response, chosen by 60 percent of respondents, was “developing a plan to allow those in the U.S. illegally who have jobs to become legal residents.” This option was the top choice for 81 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 37 percent of Republicans.

Another question, using more detailed language than most other polls to describe undocumented immigrants and policy options for them, showed overwhelming support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. Asked “how the U.S. government should treat illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe,” 90 percent of respondents said they would favor “a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in this country rather than being deported and eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship.” Only 9 percent opposed this proposal. This proposal was heavily favored across party lines: 96 percent of Democrats, 89 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Republicans. Even Trump supporters overwhelmingly favored this proposal, with 84 percent support compared with 15 percent opposition.

In the March 2017 Quinnipiac University poll mentioned above, respondents were asked which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (74 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay and either “eventually apply for citizenship” (63 percent) or to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship (11 percent). Again, respondents across party lines favored allowing undocumented immigrants to stay, including 92 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents and 51 percent of Republicans. Requiring these individuals to leave the U.S. was favored by 23 percent of respondents.

Respondents in a March McClatchy-Marist poll were asked if they favored or opposed “Congress providing a way for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the U.S. to gain legal citizenship if they learn English, pay fines and have jobs that pay taxes.” As with other polls that describe in some detail the policy options considered for undocumented immigrants, support was very strong among all respondents: 83 percent were in favor of the proposal, an increase from a similar poll conducted the previous month. Respondents across party lines favored the proposal by significant margins, including 90 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Independents, and 71 percent of Republicans. Seventy-one percent of Trump supporters favored the proposal.

An April 2017 Texas Lyceum poll asked a sample of Texas adults whether they supported or opposed “allowing illegal immigrants living in the U.S. the opportunity to become citizens after a long waiting period if they pay taxes and a penalty, pass a criminal background check, and learn English.” Most Texans (90 percent) support the idea. Just 9 percent are opposed. On this issue, there was broad agreement along partisan lines, with 91 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 90 percent of Independents “strongly” or “somewhat” in favor. These results reinforce the correlation of broad support and an immigration proposal that is described in some detail.

In June, 2017, the Public Religion Research Institute released the results of interviews with 40,000 persons across the U.S., conducted between May 18, 2016 and January 10, 2017. In this massive survey, 64 percent of Americans said that “immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally” should be allowed “to become citizens provided that meet certain requirements.” An additional 15 percent said that these immigrants should be allowed to become permanent residents but not citizens. Only 16 percent said the immigrants should be identified and deported. Large majorities of Democrats (90 percent) and Republicans (68 percent) favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay and either become citizens or permanent residents. This survey was large enough to include a sample of respondents from every state, and in every state there was majority support for a path to citizenship. Support ranged from a high of 74 percent in Maryland to a low of 55 percent in Wyoming.

Attitude toward Mass Deportation

The Trump Administration has stepped up deportations of undocumented immigrants, and the president’s executive order on immigration enforcement calls for the hiring of 10,000 additional immigration enforcement agents. Many opinion surveys since December have tested public attitudes toward the increase in deportations.

In general, a majority of the respondents in these public opinion polls have opposed the idea of deporting all undocumented immigrants, and the public thinks the administration has moved too aggressively. But answers are split along partisan lines. Republicans and Trump voters are generally supportive of stepped-up enforcement. There was more unity when surveys asked about support for deportation of immigrants who had committed crimes. When this subset of immigrants was the focus, support for deportation grew.

In the December 2016 Politico-Harvard University poll on domestic priorities for the president’s first 100 days, respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed several of the president-elect’s proposals. A majority (55 percent) opposed “deporting unauthorized immigrants who are currently in the U.S.” Trump voters (61 percent) and Republicans (64 percent) favored the proposal, while Democrats were opposed (76 percent). In a separate question about how the government should treat undocumented immigrants, 42 percent favored deportation, but respondents were given the choice between “identify and deport those with criminal records,” and “identify and deport all of them.” Only 8 percent of the general public favored deportation of all undocumented immigrants, and support was not much greater among Republicans or Trump voters (13 percent each).

The March 2017 CNN/ORC poll included several questions on deportation. When asked what the government’s top priority should be in dealing “with the issue of illegal immigration,” just 13 percent of respondents chose “deporting immigrants already in the U.S. illegally.” This choice came in last among all three partisan groups, chosen by 5 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of Republicans, and 14 percent of Independents. (The top choice was “developing a plan to allow those in the U.S. illegally who have jobs to become legal residents.”)

In a separate question about deportation, respondents were asked whether the government “should attempt to deport all people currently living in the country illegally.” Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) said the government should not. A majority of Republicans (55 percent) said the government should not attempt to deport all undocumented immigrants, along with 86 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Independents. However, when asked whether the government “should attempt to deport all people currently living in the country illegally who have been convicted of other crimes while living in the U.S.,” the response flipped, with more than three-quarters (78 percent) saying the government should attempt to deport these individuals.

Respondents in this same survey were asked whether they were more concerned that immigration enforcement efforts would go too far, or would not go far enough. The majority, 58 percent, said they were more concerned that “deportation efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people who haven’t committed serious crimes.” Forty percent said they were more concerned that “deportation efforts won’t go far enough and dangerous criminals will remain in the United States.” There was a partisan split on this question, with 80 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Independents concerned that deportation efforts would go too far, and 68 percent of Republicans concerned deportation efforts would not go far enough.

A Quinnipiac University survey in March 2017 asked respondents whether they thought the Trump administration has “been too aggressive in deporting immigrants who are here illegally,” or if it has not been aggressive enough. A plurality of all respondents (49 percent) thought the administration has been acting too aggressively. Only 9 percent of respondents overall thought the administration was not being aggressive enough. Thirty-four percent of respondents thought the administration was acting appropriately. Both Democrats (81 percent) and Independents (52 percent) thought the administration was being too aggressive, while a majority of Republicans (71 percent) thought the administration was acting appropriately.

Another question in this survey tried to break out treatment of the undocumented population depending on whether individuals had committed crimes or not, and whether any crimes committed were serious. Respondents were asked whom they thought should be deported: “Should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed a serious crime, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?” A majority, 55 percent, said they thought only those who had committed serious crimes should be deported. This includes nearly half of Republicans (48 percent) as well as 53 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Independents.

In the April 2017 Texas Lyceum poll, a sample of Texas adults were asked whether they wanted the president to “deport millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.” Only 31 percent said yes. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) were opposed. A majority of Republicans (59 percent) favored mass deportation, while Democrats (84 percent) and Independents (65 percent) were opposed.

Another Quinnipiac University poll in April 2017 asked respondents whether they thought the Trump administration has “been too aggressive in deporting immigrants who are here illegally,” not aggressive enough, or if the level of deportations was appropriate. A plurality of Independents (46 percent) and a majority of Democrats (79 percent) thought the administration was too aggressive. Most Republicans thought the current level of deportations was appropriate (72 percent) or that the administration was not aggressive enough (17 percent). Overall, a plurality, 47 percent, thought the administration’s deportation policy was too aggressive. Only 9 percent thought the policy was not aggressive enough.

Visit https://immigrationlawctr.com/news/ for more immigration news.

The post Public Opinion On Immigration Policy appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

from Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/public-opinion-immigration-policy/

Chasing The American Dream

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti Criticizes House’s Immigration Bill