Immigration 101: why public is conflicted on Obama move

Nearly 50 percent of Americans oppose President Obama's move to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, a poll finds. But a majority support a pathway to citizenship. 

Susan Walsh/AP
Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada stands next to a sign Thursday on Capitol Hill in Washington that states the number of days since the Senate passed immigration reform legislation.

Public opinion on President Obama’s soon-to-be-announced move to shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation is sharply divided – and internally contradictory.

Almost half of Americans – 48 percent – oppose the president’s plan, while 38 percent support it, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But at the same time, 57 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship for people in the United States illegally – a key sticking point that immigration hard-liners call “amnesty,” the poll finds. And that number increases to 74 percent when those surveyed are told that to get on the “pathway” one must pay fines and back taxes, and pass a security background check.

What the poll shows is that Obama’s biggest problem, beyond the legal argument, is process, NBC News’ “First Read” observes. By a margin of 63 percent to 30 percent, Americans want compromise over sticking to positions on the immigration issue, the poll finds.

“Americans prefer elected leaders coming together to get something done,” says “First Read.”

Obama is likely to pay a political price for giving up on Congress, analysts say. At the same time, if he were to delay executive action further, he would infuriate the immigration activists to whom he has long promised action. At first, he pledged an announcement at the end of the summer, then delayed it until after the Nov. 4 midterms so as not to harm endangered Democrats (many of whom lost anyway).

In fact, perhaps Obama should have made his move before the election to spur Latino turnout in key races, some activists suggest. Overall, Latino turnout this year remained flat at 8 percent of the nation’s voters, same as in the last two midterms (2010 and 2006), while the number of Hispanic eligible voters is more than 25 million today, up from 17.3 million in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Democratic House candidates won 62 percent of the Latino vote this year. That’s similar to the 2010 midterm, but down from 2012, when Latinos voted for Democrats over Republicans for the House by a margin of 68 percent to 30 percent.  

In the gubernatorial races in Georgia and Texas, the Republican candidates won more than 40 percent of the Latino vote, Pew notes.

In Nevada, where Obama will deliver a speech Friday promoting his immigration plan, Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) scored notable gains with Latino voters in his reelection bid. He won 47 percent – a threefold increase over his share of the vote in 2010.

“To be sure, Sandoval’s stronger 2014 performance reflects the lack of a serious Democratic challenger, as well as his support for a number of Latino policy priorities including Medicaid expansion, funding for English Language Learners, and support for driver’s privilege cards,” writes David Damore, a senior analyst for Latino Decisions polling firm.

“Perhaps no Democrat though owes his political survival to the Latino community more than Harry Reid,” Mr. Damore adds. “In 2010 it was strong Latino turnout and these voters’ overwhelming support for Reid allowed Reid to escape that year’s Republican wave and continue serving as Senate majority leader.”

Senator Reid is up for reelection in 2016. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.