Journal
PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 660-680Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1537592716001110
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley
Ask authors/readers for more resources
We argue that widely accepted elitist and clientelist models of immigration policy in the United States unduly minimize popular pressure on policy-making. These models portray majority opinion in ways that fail to recognize divergence between the public's abstract goals for immigration policy and its support for the concrete policy changes needed to achieve them. As a result, they obscure many important instances in which immigration policy accords with public preferences despite counter-pressure from elites and organized lobbies. We demonstrate this point by identifying and explaining gaps between generalized attitudes and beliefs about specific policies in the domains of both legal and illegal immigration, showing that status quo legal admissions policies are not starkly at odds with majority preferences and that, contrary to interpretations of most commercial polling on the topic, majorities reject specific aspects of legalization programs that organized lobbies insist on as components of a grand bargain to overhaul an immigration system widely viewed as broken. Appreciating the nuance in mass opinion toward immigration policy helps explain policy stagnation that confounds elitist models and suggests that forging ahead with immigration reform will require persuading the public and not only successful bargaining among elites and interest groups.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available