How important is immigration to the 2016 presidential race? Ever since Donald Trump rocketed to the top of the polls, the conventional wisdom has been that, among Republicans at least, it is one of the primary issues of the campaign.
Now that actual voting has started, there has been some pushback against this assumption. Commentary Magazine published a piece debunking the “immigration canard.” A Washington Post blogger warned against “xenophobic voices” that are “loud but in no way represent the concerns of Republicans.”
The key data points in this reappraisal are that immigration is listed as the top issue by a significantly smaller percentage of Republican voters than topics such as the economy, terrorism or government spending. Only 10 percent listed immigration in South Carolina. It was 13 percent in Iowa and 15 percent in New Hampshire.
In South Carolina, 53 percent of Republican primary voters said they wanted illegal immigrants offered a chance to apply for legal status to 44 percent who preferred they are deported. A Daily Caller headline described the result: “GOP voters say they support ‘amnesty.'”
But deportation versus legalization hasn’t been the option typically favored by professional immigration restrictionists. During the debate over legalization, which included proposals derided by opponents as amnesty during George W. Bush’s administration, they argued for “attrition through enforcement,” or gradual reductions in the illegal immigrant population that relied more on voluntary departures than deportation.
This too was controversial. During Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, his references to illegal immigrants deciding to “self-deport” was widely mocked. It nevertheless does differ from mass deportations. It is noteworthy that Trump’s formal immigration plan, clearly influenced by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., doesn’t mention mass deportation, while the candidate himself has repeatedly called for it on the campaign trail. So having 40 percent of Republican primary voters support a position to the right of most Washington immigration hardliners’ isn’t trivial.
Trump also owns the immigration vote. In South Carolina, he won 51 percent of immigration voters to Ted Cruz’s 25 percent. Marco Rubio took just 11 percent. Among those who want most working illegal immigrants deported, Trump beat Cruz 47 percent. Interestingly, Rubio came in third among these voters with 15 percent while Trump finished second among pro-legalization voters, beating Jeb Bush by 11 points.
The pattern was similar elsewhere. In New Hampshire, Trump won immigration voters 53 percent to Cruz’s 21 percent. Rubio got just 8 percent. The billionaire won 51 percent of those who wanted illegal immigrants deported to Cruz’s 19 percent. Trump edged out John Kasich by one point among pro-legalization voters.
Even in Iowa, where Trump lost, he beat caucus-winner Cruz by 10 points among immigration voters. In Nevada, where 20 percent picked immigration as their top issue, Trump dominated. He also carried the Latino vote, albeit with a small sample size.
The exit polls have also showed consistently high support — between three-fifths and three-fourths — for Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States. This is another position that is more restrictive than what most national immigration hardliners advocate, something introduced into the public discourse almost entirely by Trump.
Republican primary voters increasingly see immigration as a national security issue. So some Republicans who list terrorism, national security or even the economy and jobs as their main priority may also be influenced by candidates’ positions on immigration.
Has the role of immigration been exaggerated in the 2016 campaign? Definitely, just as the nuances of Republican opinion on immigration have been downplayed. But correctives to the immigration conventional wisdom can be exaggerated, too.
