SS-Im-Im | Program for Public Consultation

Swing State Survey: Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers, While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

October 10, 2024 – As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, majorities prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

To deter illegal border crossings, majorities favor strengthening the border and making it harder for illegal immigrants to get employment by requiring that employers use the E-Verify system. At the same time, majorities favor increasing the number of work visas to meet the demand for workers through legal channels.

Path to Citizenship vs Mass Deportation

Respondents were told that there are about 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status, most for over a decade. They evaluated two significantly different proposals for dealing with this population – a path to citizenship and mass deportation – including strong arguments for and against each. Finally, they were asked to choose one of the proposals or neither.

Overall, majorities in every swing state prefer the path to citizenship (55-65%), which was summarized as follows:

“Create a new type of visa that would be available to undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US for some years and have not committed a serious crime. They would pay a penalty, and any taxes they owe. After several years, they would be allowed to apply for citizenship. Those who do not apply or qualify for the visa would be subject to deportation.”

Just 24-30% in the swing states prefer mass deportation, which was summarized as follows:

“Undertake a program of mass deportation throughout the country, with the goal of finding, detaining and deporting most or all of the 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status. States would be asked to use their local law enforcement or National Guard, and the Federal government may use the military. Large facilities would be built to hold people who have been detained. The cost would be $100 billion or more.”

Among Republicans, in five of the six swing states, a path to citizenship is preferred over mass deportation. Modest majorities prefer a path to citizenship in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin (51-55%). In Michigan, 50% prefer a path to citizenship (38% for mass deportation). In Georgia, it is 47% to 40%. Republicans In Pennsylvania are evenly divided (42% for each option).

Among Democrats, majorities in all states prefer a path to citizenship, ranging from 67% in Georgia to 77% in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. It is favored by 70% in Arizona and 71% in Pennsylvania.

Neither option is favored by 9-15% in the swing states, including 7-14% of Republicans and 9-11% of Democrats. Nationally, 15% do not want either option.

Among every demographic group – including by race, ethnicity, gender, age, income and education – a majority prefers a path to citizenship, in the swing states as a whole and nationally.

Path to Citizenship: Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
It is simply not feasible to deport over 10 million people living and working here, most of them for more than a decade. These people have integrated into America and are making valuable contributions. Deporting all of them would have horrible effects on communities and our economy. If we give these people legal status they would no longer need to live in the shadows and their children would not live in fear that their parents will be suddenly taken away. It would also benefit American workers, because they would be competing with immigrants on a level playing field, rather than competing with undocumented immigrants who can be easily exploited and underpaid by employers. This proposal is a way to deal with these people and families in an orderly, realistic and humane fashion.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
We need to remember that these people are here illegally. If we let them stay that would be giving them amnesty. This will undermine the rule of law. It is simply surrendering in the battle to defend our borders, and a country with undefended borders is not a real country. Furthermore, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants will only make the problem worse. It will encourage more immigrants to come here illegally. In the 1980’s when we granted amnesty illegal immigrants kept on coming. Giving illegal immigrants a free pass, just because they have been here a few years, is not fair to those who are abiding by our laws and going through the proper channels. We should not let people, who knowingly broke our laws, live here and try to become citizens.

Mass Deportation: Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Millions of people have been living here illegally for years. They are disrespecting our laws and our nation. Immigrants know that if they make it deep into the country, they’re unlikely to be caught because the government is hardly making an effort to catch them. Then they can stay here indefinitely. This is bad for our country. Laws do not mean anything if they are not enforced. We should ramp up efforts at catching and deporting people living here illegally throughout the country.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
Most of the people that would be deported have been here for over 12 years. Many have families and spouses who are legal residents or US citizens. Families will be broken up, and children will lose a parent. These people are part of our communities, abiding by the laws. They would be forced back to a country they have not lived in for over a decade or since they were infants or even just dropped off at the border. These are our neighbors; we should not treat them like our enemies.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
It should not matter whether someone has been successfully violating the law for over a decade, or if they violated it yesterday. And we do not let criminals go free just because they have a family. Any consequences to their spouse or children are on the illegal immigrant for breaking the law. Millions of immigrants live here legally and went through the proper channels, but these people decided to cheat and break the law.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
Mass deportation would entail massive raids, with police and possibly even the military raiding businesses, churches, hospitals, and other public places. Hundreds of thousands of people would be put in detention centers and kept there until they could prove they are legal. Anyone could be detained based on a hunch. Over 50 million Americans are Hispanics living here legally: many of them would be swept up if they were not carrying the right papers with them. Enforcing a law should never result in violating the civil liberties of millions of innocent people.

THIRD ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Illegal immigrants drive down wages for many lower-income American workers, since they are competing for some of the same jobs. Without so many illegal workers here, there will be more jobs open for Americans. Illegal immigrants are also a drain on our government. They contribute less in taxes than the cost of the government services they get, like educating their children.

THIRD ARGUMENT AGAINST
Studies have been done on the economic impact of mass deportation. The millions of undocumented workers make up a substantial part of the workforce in critical industries, such as farming and construction, as well as hotels and restaurants. Mass deportation would cause devastating labor shortages, raise prices for food and new housing, and reduce overall economic activity, likely causing a recession.

FOURTH ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
To stop illegal immigration people need to be deterred from coming here. If we deport millions of people back to the countries they came from, the people there will get the message that it does not pay to try to come to the US illegally. The flow across the border would be greatly slowed down and we would have some sense of order again at our borders.

FOURTH ARGUMENT AGAINST
The core of the problem has been that American employers need workers, but not enough Americans want these jobs while immigrants do, and the government has not done enough to create legal ways to fully meet that need. So employers as well as workers get together illegally. What we need is to create more legal pathways for employers to hire immigrants and then to crack down on employers who don’t use these legal pathways, so that illegal work is no longer available. That is the long-term solution, not mass deportation.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

increasing border patrol

Increasing the number of Border Patrol agents A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by bipartisan majorities in the swing states (71-77%), including 77-82% of Republicans and 65-79% of Democrats. Nationally, a bipartisan majority of 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%).

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
With more border patrol and better surveillance, we can better capture people who are violating the law by illegally entering the US, or smuggling drugs, weapons and people into the US. Over the last several years there has been an enormous number of people illegally entering the US, and the government needs to keep up. Border Patrol is the first line of defense against illegal border crossers and they must have the resources to keep our border secure.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
The Border Patrol already has too much power. Their authority covers areas where tens of millions of American citizens live, and in that area they have the power to detain anyone for almost any reason. With that much power there is always corruption, and even the Border Patrol has admitted they have a problem with corruption. Agents have been caught assisting drug cartels and human traffickers. Giving them even more resources will put Americans’ liberties further at risk.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

building more border wall

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by majorities in every swing state (57-64%), but it is not bipartisan.

Majorities of Republicans (76-83%) are in favor in all states. But among Democrats, majorities are opposed in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (53-57%). Views are divided in Nevada (48% in favor 51% opposed), while a majority are in favor in Georgia (56%).

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Securing our southern border is a good investment. Everyday hundreds or thousands of immigrants succeed in entering the US illegally. Some are criminals, bringing in drugs and trafficking people for illegal labor or prostitution. Some get fake IDs and use taxpayer funded government benefits. Some are even members of terrorist groups. By preventing large numbers of immigrant job-seekers from crossing, our Border Patrol agents can focus more of their resources on the most serious criminals trying to come into the US.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
Building a wall is mostly an expensive symbolic gesture that doesn’t work. People get over walls with ladders. We’ve built hundreds of miles of new walls and illegal crossings have not gone down. Walls also haven’t stopped the flow of illegal drugs, since nearly all drug trafficking happens through legal entry-ways. If we want to be serious about reducing illegal immigration, let’s take steps that are actually effective, like having more border guards and surveillance, and discouraging people from entering illegally in the first place by preventing employers from hiring them.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

requiring employers to use e-verify

Americans show support for steps that would deter illegal border crossings by making it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to get employment while also increasing the availability of work visas.

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by bipartisan majorities in the swing states (67-73%), including 66-77% of Republicans and 71-78% of Democrats. Nationally, a bipartisan majority of 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%).

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The primary reason that people immigrate to the US illegally is because they are looking for a job. The reason that the US is such a job magnet for illegal workers is that so many employers often turn a blind eye to the fact that many of the people they are hiring are illegal. If people knew that they would not be able to find a job when they get here, they would be much less likely to cross the border illegally.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
Employers should not have the responsibility to enforce US immigration laws. It is also costly for the employer. According to one study, requiring employers to use E-Verify would cost small businesses $2.7 billion to implement, an average of $127 per new employee. It is the government’s job to ensure that illegal immigrants do not come into the US in the first place, rather than expecting employers to police them.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Employers are required to follow all types of laws, for safety, health, and many other requirements that are important for society. Requiring them to make sure the people they hire are actually allowed to work here legally is not such a big burden. But it will have big, positive effects. It will reduce the chaos on the border and generally contribute to a more orderly society.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
While the E-Verify system sounds good on paper it can be easily fooled. Government-funded studies have found that E-Verify mistakenly approves many unauthorized immigrants, mostly due to the fraudulent use of Social Security numbers. Mandating E-Verify would likely increase the use of stolen Social Security numbers. Also, some people who are completely legal sometimes do not come up in the system and are wrongly rejected.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

increasing the number of work visas

Respondents evaluated a proposal to increase the number of migrant workers who enter the US legally by increasing the number of work visas available, provided there is a demand for such workers. Respondents were informed that: work visas are only granted if the employer has tried and failed to fill the position with an American worker; that employers must pay migrant workers the same wages they would to American workers; and that currently offering more visas would substantially increase the number of legal migrant workers.

This proposal was supported by majorities in the swing states (65-71%), including majorities of Democrats (79-84%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin (58-64%), and half are in support in Michigan and Pennsylvania (51% in each state). Nationally, 67% are in favor, including 84% of Democrats and a modest majority of Republicans (53%).

Respondents also evaluated a proposal to increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, also known as H-2B visas. Majorities in every swing state favor this proposal (63-68%), including majorities of Democrats (74-79%). Majorities of Republicans are in favor in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada (55-61%), and are divided in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Nationally, 63% are in favor, including 80% of Democrats, with Republicans statistically divided (52% favor to 48% oppose).

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The fact is that there are many industries in the United States that need immigrant workers, because Americans won’t take those jobs. That is why they currently hire millions of them. It would be much better if this process was done in a legal way, and to ensure American workers get the first crack at those jobs. It is also important that immigrant workers are paid the kinds of wages that go to Americans, so they do not undercut American workers, and pay taxes on their wages. All this can only be done if we have a legal system of guest workers that provides enough work visas.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
This whole idea of trying to solve the problem of illegal workers by replacing them with legal workers fails to address the underlying problem. Most illegal workers have only a high school education or less, and so they compete directly with Americans for low-wage jobs, where wages have been stagnant for decades. It is Economics 101 that when wages are low it is because there is too big of a supply of workers. Having more legal immigrant workers does not change the supply of workers, and thus does not help raise wages for Americans.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
As we know it is very hard to stop people from coming here if they need work and there are employers who want to hire them. So, the real choice is between continuing to have illegal workers come to the US, being paid very low wages under the table and driving down wages, or having workers come here legally that have to be paid fair wages and pay taxes on those wages. This proposal is trying to deal with the reality of the situation that there will always be immigrant workers coming to the US, and improve the situation for everyone.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
While advocates of this proposal for guest workers may claim that it will think of American workers first, the chances are that the government will think of corporations first, and the corporations want an oversupply of labor so that they can keep wages low. That means they will pressure the government to look the other way and let the corporations hire guest workers who will undercut American workers, even when there are American workers still in need of a good-paying job.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

mandatory e-Verify and more Work Visas AS A Package

Support for requiring E-Verify and providing more work visas increases when they are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one of the two proposals were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored each proposal on their own, with those who favored the proposals only as a package, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

This follow-on question was asked because support for one of the above proposals may depend on whether the other is passed into law. For example, a person may only want to increase the number of work visas if it will also be harder for employers to hire undocumented workers.

Hiring more judges to speed up asylum processing

Respondents were informed that there is a record-high backlog of asylum cases, and that as a result, asylum seekers are now waiting in the US for an average of four years before their cases are heard.

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by majorities in the swing states (58-68%), including majorities of Democrats (73-77%). Views are mixed among Republicans: majorities are in favor in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada (57-63%), views are divided in Michigan, while majorities are opposed in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (54% in each).

Nationally, 58% are in favor, including a majority of Democrats (74%), while a majority of Republicans are opposed (54%).

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Hiring more asylum judges and staff to keep up with the increases in asylum applications is a key solution to this problem. It is not fair to keep people with a legitimate asylum claim to be in a state of limbo for so many years. Furthermore, because of the long wait time, some people may cross the border with the plan to make a false asylum claim just so that they can legally stay in the US for some years. Speeding up the review process by hiring more judges is both humane and a way to discourage illegal crossings.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
The US does have a responsibility to review the cases for asylum. But it is not our responsibility to make the investment to increase the number of judges whenever there is a surge of asylum applicants. More importantly, it takes more than a year to put in place a new judge, support personnel, and other resources. By the time we put them in place the surge in asylum seekers may have died down and we would have wasted money and effort.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

“Majorities favor reforms that would reduce the number of undocumented immigrants, not via mass deportation, but by creating more legal pathways for people who want to live and work here, and by strengthening the border to make it more difficult for people to enter the country illegally.”

Steven Kull, Director, Program for Public Consultation

more information

Immigration Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs, and Methodology

Go Through the
Immigration
Policymaking Simulation

Other Releases from
the Swing Six Issue
Survey Series

About the Survey

The survey was fielded September 23 - October 1, 2024 with 4,640 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, including approximately 600 in each state of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and 1,216 nationally. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation (nationally and in some states) to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the national sample is +/- 3.2%, and for the state samples it ranges from +/- 4.5 to 4.6%.

Sources of Proposals

SOURCES OF PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL: Offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for some years, not committed a crime, and paid a penalty and back-taxes.

U.S. Citizenship Act by Rep. Sanchez

PROPOSAL: Undertake a program of mass deportation to find, detain and deport most or all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants.

2024 GOP Platform
Allow for raids in currently protected areas, including schools, churches and hospitals: Mandate for Leadership, Chapter 5
Use local law enforcement, and National Guard if states agree, and possibly the military to aid in catching and detaining undocumented immigrants: Mandate for Leadership, Chapter 5; Associated Press. (2024) Trump says he’ll use National Guard to deport migrants, doubling down on anti-immigration rhetoric

PROPOSAL: Increase the number of work visas to match the demand for migrant workers.

Closing the Workforce Gap Act of 2024, by Rep. Slotkin
Other proposals to increase work visas in:
- Dignity Act by Rep. Salazar
- H-2 Improvements to Relieve Employers by Rep. Gonzales
- Essential Workers for Economic Advancement Act by Rep. Smucker
- The Biden administration

PROPOSAL: Require employers use E-Verify to ensure new hires can legally work in the US.

Dignity Act by Rep. Salazar
Secure the Border Act by Rep. Diaz-Balart and Sen. Cruz

PROPOSAL: Hire more immigration judges to speed up asylum processing, and reduce the time asylum seekers spend in the US waiting for their cases to be heard.

PROPOSAL: Hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and provide them more funding for surveillance.

Secure the Border Act by Rep. Diaz-Balart and Sen. Cruz
Dignity Act by Rep. Salazar
Similar proposal by the The Biden administration

PROPOSAL: Build substantially more barriers, primarily walls, along the southern border.

Secure the Border Act by Rep. Diaz-Balart and Sen. Cruz
Finish the Wall Act by Rep. Higgins

About the Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, seeking to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy issues. It shares its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

State Survey Reports

Arizona

In Arizona Bipartisan Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Arizona, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Arizona, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

To deter illegal border crossings, swing state and national majorities favor strengthening the border and making it harder for illegal immigrants to get employment by requiring that employers use the E-Verify system. At the same time, majorities favor increasing the number of work visas to meet the demand for workers through legal channels.

Director of the Program for Public Consultation, Steven Kull, comments, “Majorities favor reforms that would reduce the number of undocumented immigrants, not via mass deportation, but by creating more legal pathways for people who want to live and work here, and by strengthening the border to make it more difficult for people to enter the country illegally.”

This survey is the ninth in a series – the Swing Six Issue Surveys – being conducted in the run-up to the November election in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as nationally, on major policy issues. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance. All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.

Path to Citizenship vs Mass Deportation
Respondents were told that there are about 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status, most for over a decade. They evaluated two significantly different proposals for dealing with this population – a path to citizenship and mass deportation – including strong arguments for and against each. Finally, they were asked to choose one of the proposals or neither.

Overall, a bipartisan majority in Arizona prefers the path to citizenship (60%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 70%), which was summarized as follows:

Create a new type of visa that would be available to undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US for some years and have not committed a serious crime. They would pay a penalty and any taxes they owe. After several years, they would be allowed to apply for citizenship. Those who do not apply or qualify for the visa would be subject to deportation.

Just 29% in Arizona prefer mass deportation (Republicans 39%, Democrats 20%), which was summarized as follows:

Undertake a program of mass deportation throughout the country, with the goal of finding, detaining and deporting most or all of the 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status. States would be asked to use their local law enforcement or National Guard, and the Federal government may use the military. Large facilities would be built to hold people who have been detained. The cost would be $100 billion or more.

Across all the swing states, 55-65% prefer the path to citizenship, and just 24-30% prefer mass deportation. Among Democrats across the swing states, majorities prefer a path to citizenship (67-77%). Among Republicans, more favor a path to citizenship than mass deportation in every swing state except Pennsylvania, where they are divided.

Nationally, 58% prefer a path to citizenship and 26% mass deportation. More Republicans prefer a path to citizenship (45%) than prefer mass deportation (40%). Among Democrats, 75% prefer a path to citizenship.

Neither option is chosen by 11% in Arizona (Republicans 7%, Democrats 9%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 76% in Arizona (Republicans 82%, Democrats 74%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by 62% in Arizona, including a majority of Republicans (83%), but less than half of Democrats (43% favor, 57% oppose).

Across all swing states, majorities of 57-64% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans, while majorities of Democrats are opposed in every state but Georgia.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

Deterring Illegal Entry While Increasing Work Visas

Americans show support for steps that would deter illegal border crossings by making it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to get employment while also increasing the availability of work visas.

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority of 72% in Arizona (Republicans 77%, Democrats 74%).

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

Respondents also evaluated a proposal to increase the number of migrant workers who enter the US legally by increasing the number of work visas available, provided there is a demand for such workers. Respondents were informed that: work visas are only granted if the employer has tried and failed to fill the position with an American worker; that employers must pay migrant workers the same wages they would to American workers; and that currently offering more visas would substantially increase the number of legal migrant workers.

This proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of 71% in Arizona (Republicans 64%, Democrats 81%).

Across all swing states, majorities of 65-71% are in favor, including majorities of Democrats in every state (79-84%), and majorities of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin (58-64%), but just half of Republicans in Michigan and Pennsylvania (51%). Nationally, 67% are in favor (Republicans 53%, Democrats 84%). [BAR GRAPH]

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one of the two proposals were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Arizona rises to 78% (Republicans 78%, Democrats 83%).
[BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

Hiring More Judges for Asylum Cases

Respondents were informed that there is a record-high backlog of asylum cases, and that as a result, asylum seekers are now waiting in the US for an average of four years before their cases are heard.

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 68% in Arizona (Republicans 63%, Democrats 77%).

Across all swing states, support is 58-68%, including majorities of Democrats in every state (73-77%), but majorities of Republicans only in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. Nationally, 58% are in favor, including a majority of Democrats (74%), while a majority of Republicans are opposed (54%). [BAR GRAPH]

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 602 adults in Arizona by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population in Arizona. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Arizona sample is +/- 4.5%.

Georgia

In Georgia Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Georgia, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Georgia, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

Overall, a majority in Georgia prefers the path to citizenship (57%), summarized as follows:

Just 30% in Georgia prefer mass deportation, which was summarized as follows:

Among Democrats in Georgia, a majority of 67% prefer a path to citizenship. Among Republicans, 47% prefer a path to citizenship and 40% mass deportation.

Neither option is chosen by 13% in Georgia (Republicans 13%, Democrats 11%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 77% in Georgia (Republicans 81%, Democrats 76%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by a bipartisan majority of 64% in Georgia, including 76% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats.

Georgia is the only swing state with bipartisan support for building more border walls. In the other five swing states, majorities of 57-62% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans, with majorities of Democrats opposed.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority in Georgia (72%), including 68% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats.

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

This proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of 69% in Georgia, including 58% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats.

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one proposal were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Georgia rises to 78% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 86%).
[BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by 66% in Georgia, including 57% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats.

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 605 adults in Georgia by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population in Georgia. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Georgia sample is +/- 4.5%.

Michigan

In Michigan Majorities Favors Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Michigan, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Michigan, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

Overall, a majority in Michigan prefers the path to citizenship (63%), summarized as follows:

Just 24% in Michigan prefer mass deportation, which was summarized as follows:

Among Democrats in Michigan, a majority of 77% prefer a path to citizenship. Among Republicans, half prefer a path to citizenship (50%) and 38% prefer mass deportation.

Neither option is chosen by 12% in Michigan (Republicans 11%, Democrats 9%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 73% in Michigan (Republicans 80%, Democrats 70%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by 57% in Michigan, including a majority of Republicans (78%), while a majority of Democrats are opposed (57%).

Across all swing states, majorities of 57-64% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans in every state, while majorities of Democrats are opposed in every state but Georgia.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority in Michigan (67%), including 67% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

This proposal was supported by a majority of 65% in Michigan, including a majority of Democrats (80%), with Republicans divided (51% favor to 49% oppose).

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one proposal were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Michigan rises to 72% (Republicans 69%, Democrats 81%). [BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by 60% in Michigan, including 75% of Democrats, with Republicans statistically divided (48% favor to 51% oppose).

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 604 adults in Michigan by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population in Michigan. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Michigan sample is +/- 4.5%.

Nevada

In Nevada Bipartisan Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Nevada, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Nevada, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

Overall, a bipartisan majority in Nevada prefers the path to citizenship (65%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 77%), which was summarized as follows:

Just 24% in Nevada prefer mass deportation (Republicans 37%, Democrats 13%), which was summarized as follows:

Neither option is chosen by 9% in Nevada (Republicans 7%, Democrats 9%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 71% in Nevada (Republicans 80%, Democrats 65%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by 62% in Nevada, including a majority of Republicans (79%), with Democrats divided (48% favor to 51% oppose).

Across all swing states, majorities of 57-64% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans in every state, while majorities of Democrats are opposed in every state but Georgia.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority in Nevada (72%), including 74% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

This proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of 69% in Nevada, including 62% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats.

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one proposal were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Nevada rises to 76% (Republicans 74%, Democrats 81%).
[BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 67% in Nevada, including 59% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats.

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 599 adults in Nevada by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population in Nevada. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Nevada sample is +/- 4.6%.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Pennsylvania, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Pennsylvania, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

Overall, a modest majority in Pennsylvania prefers the path to citizenship (55%), summarized as follows:

Just 28% in Pennsylvania prefer mass deportation, which was summarized as follows:

Among Democrats in Pennsylvania, a majority of 71% prefer a path to citizenship, while Republicans are divided with 42% preferring a path to citizenship and 42% mass deportation.

Neither option is chosen by 15% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 14%, Democrats 11%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 76% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 77%, Democrats 79%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by 61% in Pennsylvania, including 77% of Republicans, while a modest majority of Democrats are opposed (53%).

Across all swing states, majorities of 57-64% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans in every state, while majorities of Democrats are opposed in every state but Georgia.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority in Pennsylvania (70%), including 66% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats.

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

This proposal was supported by a majority of 67% in Pennsylvania, including 84% of Democrats, with Republicans divided (51% favor to 49% oppose).

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one proposal were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Pennsylvania rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 63%, Democrats 85%).
[BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by 58% in Pennsylvania, including 73% of Democrats, while a majority of Republicans are opposed (54%).

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 601 adults in Pennsylvania by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population in Pennsylvania. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Pennsylvania sample is +/- 4.5%.

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border

Favor Deterring Illegal Border Crossings by Mandating E-Verify for Employers,
While Also Increasing Number of Work Visas

As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in Wisconsin, five other six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in Wisconsin, every other swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation.

Overall, a majority in Wisconsin prefers the path to citizenship (63%), which was summarized as follows:

Just 25% in Wisconsin prefer mass deportation, which was summarized as follows:

Among Democrats in Wisconsin, a majority of 77% prefer a path to citizenship. Among Republicans, 51% prefer path to citizenship and 36% mass deportation.

Neither option is chosen by 11% in Wisconsin (Republicans 12%, Democrats 9%). Across all swing states, it ranges from 9-15%, and nationally it is 15%.

Strengthening the Border
A legislative proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents from about 20,000 to 22,000, and to provide more funding for surveillance, is favored by a bipartisan majority of 74% in Wisconsin (Republicans 77%, Democrats 72%). Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 71-77% are in favor. Nationally, 70% are in favor (Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%). [BAR GRAPH]

Building more walls along the southern border, by replacing existing fencing with walls and building walls where no barriers currently exist, which is estimated to cost around $25 billion is favored by 59% in Wisconsin, including 76% of Republicans, while a majority of Democrats are opposed (54%).

Across all swing states, majorities of 57-64% are in favor, including majorities of Republicans in every state, while majorities of Democrats are opposed in every state but Georgia.

Nationally, a modest majority of 55% are in favor, including 72% of Republicans, while 57% of Democrats are opposed. [BAR GRAPH]

One proposal is to require employers to verify that all new hires are legally allowed to work in the US by using the E-Verify system. This proposal is favored by a bipartisan majority in Wisconsin (73%), including 68% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats.

Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-73% are in favor. Nationally, 68% are in favor (Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%). [BAR GRAPH]

This proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of 71% in Wisconsin, including 58% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats.

Support is higher when requiring E-Verify and more work visas are combined as a package. Respondents who favored only one proposal were asked whether they would support both proposals as a package. Combining those who favored both proposals on their own, with those who favored both proposals only as a package, support in Wisconsin rises to 79% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 85%).
[BAR GRAPH]

Across all swing states, support rises to 72-79%, including 63-78% of Republicans and 81-86% of Democrats. Nationally, support rises to a bipartisan majority of 74% (Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%).

A proposal to hire several hundred more immigration judges, in order to speed up the processing of asylum cases, is favored by 61% in Wisconsin, including 76% of Democrats, but a majority of Republicans are opposed (54%).

About the Survey
The survey was fielded September 23rd through October 1st, 2024 with 605 adults in Wisconsin by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population in Wisconsin. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin sample is +/- 4.5%.