A Sparse Divide and Miles Apart: The Reality of the Political Division on Immigration Policy

Photo Credit: Sandor Csudai

As the COVID-19 pandemic came to an end, Title 42 was phased out, terminating the temporary health restrictions that posed limitations towards incoming migrants. The restrictions implemented an asylum that allowed the U.S. to prevent migrants at the Mexican border from entering. The aftermath of Title 42’s end deepened the social controversy regarding immigration policy and since then, political polarization on the issue has only increased. Ever since, American immigration policy has been left in disarray; migrant arrivals continue to rise and candidate platforms grow more disunited on immigration gearing up for the November election. 

The mass of immigrants gathering at the Southern Border has only pressed the dire nature of the immigration holds. It is present in current political debates, elections, and the views of constituents. Yet while the frequency of immigration debates has increased; the subsequent political comeuppance reflects a muddled discrepancy on how these seriousconcerns regarding the influx of immigration even arose. 

History in the Rearview

In the 1980 presidential election, Republican front-runner Ronald Reagan headlined his Presidential debates with an empathetic approach to incoming legal migrants, a common view among his supporters. Immigrants were viewed as a source of cheap labor and sustained an economically secure workforce. On the left, meanwhile, immigrants were seen as outsiders to the social demographic of the United States. Democrats often viewed immigrants as a threat to domestic interests and public services meant for American citizens. 

The piece “Things Fall Apart: How the Middle Ground on Immigration Collapsed” by The New York Times Opinion section explores why the major parties solidified their opposing beliefs. They discovered that post-9/11, the immigrant population nearly quadrupled — changing the very nature of immigration issues. Both the source of the migrants’ origin and ultimately where they settled shifted the issue from an urban scale to a national one, with migrants now arriving in states all over the country. 

Rising immigration numbers from Western Europe, the Mexican border, and Middle East hotspots became viewed as a threat to the American identity. The Republican party monopolized this belief; as the GOP won a large portion ofAmerican voters, Republican politicians drove the party further from neutrality. Republicans publicized concern for national security, while Democrats reinforced notions about human dignity based on the promise of equal rights. With Republicans capitalizing on anti-immigration sentiments, the Democrat response was a dramatic swing appealing to pro-migrant voters and migrant voters themselves. 

The immigration issue has hyperpolarized existing divisions between parties. Politicians began to endorse false immigration sentiments without any real support for effective policy. After years of stagnant policy attempts came a wave of rebranded campaign marketing. What once were “fringe ideas” rapidly became mainstream. Advertising militarizing the Mexican border and enforcing heavier border patrol as campaign promises, many Americans sided with conservative plans to limit the migrant intake. Findings by the Times suggest that conservatives and liberals alike support the keyplatforms for moderate immigration reform, such as a stronger border and pathway for immigrants to obtain legal status. However, divisive rhetoric suggests immigration will remain a politicized issue. It further exacerbates policy stagnation, with aggressive attitudes towards immigrants continuing this newfound partisanship. 

Coming from Every Corner 

The parties’ competing views on immigration politics also stemmed from recent geopolitical events. A study by NYUfound that “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, political and economic turmoil in Venezuela, and various other environmental and geopolitical crises'' have homogenized the parties on immigration issues. The “GOP [has] fervently embraced nativism and anti-newcomer politics, [and] its immigration advocates [are] effectively silenced." The Democratic Party has incorporated “more diversity on immigration admissions and border policy,” but has favored immigrant rights and “strongly fought against the demonization of authorized and unauthorized newcomers.” Democratic voters have advocated for stricter regulations for illegal versus legal migrants who have obtained their rightful place in the domestic workforce. This distinction, Democrats claim, is how sanctions on immigration could become more effective. 

Image Description: Data Displaying the Reality of Republican Voters Opinion on Immigration Policy.

Image Credit:  Pew Research Center on Immigration 

The authors Carl J. Bon Tempo and Hasia R. Diner of Immigration: An American History explain that views on immigration have not diverged. Instead, they suggest that it is the direct ties to political parties that have changed the waythe issue is represented, that “immigration now mirrors our red and blue camps, creating unbridgeable sides to a chasm”.Other typology studies from the Pew Research Center mirror this finding; within the GOP, the divisions on the issue have been embraced by influential leaders, such as Donald Trump — who has used anti-immigrant rhetoric since his initial presidential campaign launch. The majority of “Core Conservatives” and “Country First Conservatives” — dubbed by Pew as the two major categorizations of the Republican party — both “overwhelmingly approve of Trump” in elections. Yet the two groups conflict in their views on immigration benefits. 

Country First Conservatives remain unhappy with the nation’s acceptance of immigrants. However, “Core Conservatives,” “Market Skeptic Republicans,” and “New Era Enterprisers” all agree that immigrants bring about both a sense of potential market optimism and that the workforce drawn from immigration strengthens the nation. A large majority of traditional Republicans maintain a positive view of the U.S. global economic present, which depends on the labor the U.S. receives via immigration. 

Split Down the Middle

So where does the split really lie? If the tradeoff on political stance is party affiliation, then the assessment of immigrationwould reconvene under the analysis of other drivers of necessary immigration reform, such as economic welfare and international diffusion of policy practices. This is evident in the broader Western hemisphere, as in the 1950s and 60s, right-wing and centrist parties often favored the labor gleaned from immigration from Mediterranean countries to Western Europe. The divide between right-wing support and left-wing wariness towards immigration was mirrored in Europe. Voters often see the migration wave as a threat to domestic workers. It was only when the left advocated for the socio-economic protection of already integrated migrants that the left began to claim a humanitarian presence to protect economic interests. 

Following the global financial crisis of 2008, most UN Member States pushed for increased social welfare upheaval regarding migration. Since 2008, EU countries have experienced a trend in “anti-immigrant positions of the political agendas” on the far-right. Parties such as Spain’s Vox party campaign based on immigrants undermining national culture and security. In Austria, the Austrian People’s Party has established a clear anti-immigration policy targeted towards those descended from Muslim immigrants which is utilized in the party’s programmatic campaign. In Germany, the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment has increased the popularity of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, as immigrants are perceived as a cultural and employment threat. French Lepenists of the Front National carry that same negative perception. The opposite view represented by German voters of the Green Party and Spanish voters of Navarre abides that immigrants bring new ideas and cultural expansion and are ultimately an economic resource. 

Image Description: Perceived Domestic Threats of Influxes of Migration.

Image Credit: Chicago Political Survey 

With arguments from the EU and the U.S. flooding mainstream politics, elected officials are beginning to advocate for conservative anti-immigration policies. This will allow local and state law enforcement to deport illegal migrants, while their children will not be declared automatic citizens. The Biden Administration has attempted to reverse policies on asylum applications, yet they abide by strict governance and often deny access to those petitioning for citizenship. These policies are now creating an “intra-party fissure”, with both moderates and progressives criticizing Biden’s approach and conservatives critiquing the legislation as ineffective. 

Firm Stances 

With the left taking an abate stance during political controversies, it strengthens the firm conservative perspective. The Washington Post and New York Times Opinion recommend Democrats solidify their position on immigration instead of attempting to appease the moderate voter. Public Opinion Quarterly, an Oxford University Press, has declared that immigration has become the most polarizing issue ahead of November: “It was the subject of Obama’s most boundary-pushing uses of executive authority and the key issue in Donald Trump’s outsider bid for the Republican nomination in 2016. Now border security is roiling Congress and could prove decisive in the 2024 election”. 

Overall, immigration has become more amenable towards Americans, but only among Democrats, so much so that the partisan divide has become stark when American jobs are in question. In 2004, only about 14% of both Republicans and Democrats felt this threat, while in 2020 those statistics among Democrats rose to around 53%. While immigration policy has become embedded in modern politics, it is only somewhat associated with party affiliation and is ultimately being used as a political tactic to acclimate voters, according to the Times. A new idea of “asymmetric constitutional hardball” — the idea that Republicans are more “willing to break norms to achieve their political objectives'' — aids the notion that“ideological changes among America’s elite have thrust the Democratic Party leftward, and the Republican Party has embraced more extreme tactics in response.” The shift has exposed the flaw that it is not singularly the Republican party'sincreasing anti-immigration rhetoric. It is equally due to the lack of administrative ability to adequately deliver migrants properly; this ultimately dismisses the immigration experience and subjects immigration policy to being a political pawn. 

In the Political Eye 

Overhauling immigration has become monopolized in political tactics, with “systematic fixes” failing to pass through Congress. More than 113,300 migrants have arrived since mid-2022 in New York, while Washington D.C. has received 10,500. Domestic funds are being used to compensate for the overwhelming retention of immigrants after New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency last Fall. Individual constituents are beginning to consider immigration as their primary issue to consider when looking at attributes for political candidates. Tighter policy reform would readjust population levels and levy more critical restrictions on border limitations. These are crucial for most voters in the upcoming election as climate migration and conflict refugees numbers increase.  

The administrative answer is far from proactive, with Congress failing to pass substantial border legislation since the 1980s. The House has shot down attempts to amend government responses to the incoming numbers of migrants. Recent attempts to reverse this, such as the February Republican conference and former President Trump rejecting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s immigration and foreign aid bill, left the bill “knifed.” The defeat opened Capitol Hill to the obvious landscape that leaves presiding leaders, like McConnell, at the will of the House to determine aid packages. However, the bill was resolved on April 24th, as the Senate passed a $95 billion foreign aid bill to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan efforts, but without any border controls the bill lacks any new legislation to monitor border security. Any bipartisan border control bill will most likely not pass until after the next election, as debates and voter views have only become more outspoken. This means that prior to November, the increase in migrants arriving will only push more discourse into the election arena. 

The fundamental shift in views towards immigration has cast apparent values on the role of immigrants. The upcoming election will be the result of this rapidly increasing polarization. Presidential candidates have the opportunity to attract voters by taking positions on immigration reform without understanding the true consequences of it and will deepen the divide indefinitely.

Image Description: A Political Cartoon by Michael P. Ramirez, demonstrating the disparity between the Influx of Migration and the Lack of Administration Capability to Receive Them.

Image Credit:  Syracuse Editorial on Immigration surge