Candidate Positions on Immigration

This piece from NPR has a very useful chart that outlines the various candidates’ views on immigration reform:  Where The 2016 Candidates Stand On Immigration, In One Chart

(h/t:  the FB feed of Alan Cross).

FILED UNDER: 2016 Election, Borders and Immigration, US Politics, ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. al-Ameda says:

    Republicans would probably support a project to re-purpose the Guantanamo base as an immigration detention center.

    What’s amazing is that, in pandering to low information voters, virtually all Republican candidates want a wall on the border with Mexico.

  2. Hal_10000 says:

    Thank goodness it’s not “Where the candidates stand on *immigrants*”. I would click through and find Trump standing on some poor guy’s neck.

  3. Jenos Idanian says:

    Of those six questions, I see exactly one that will affect LEGAL immigrants — and that’s only marginally. (The birthright citizenship one.)

    The other five all revolve around illegal immigrants.

    Yet more proof that the left doesn’t see a damned bit of difference between those who respect our laws, and those who crap all over them.

    Actually, considering how much deference the illegals are given and how little attention the legals get, it’s fair to say that the left actually prefers the illegal aliens.

    Also, note the term they use — “unauthorized immigrants.” How wonderfully vague.

  4. Scott says:

    I wonder how many candidates would support workplace raids and criminal charges against owners and managers. I suspect not many. That would be punching up.

  5. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian: As the US born caucasian employee who was asked to bring my passport down to the school district office to verify my citizenship and eligibility for employment, I think you missed one.

  6. MarkedMan says:

    If they were also for real immigration enforcement by punishing the managers and individuals who hire illegal immigrants, then I might believe them. But huge parts of our economy depend on people who work for less than minimum (or at least less than market rate) wages. It is absolutely structured for that and these sections of the economy would grind to a halt if that illegal immigration was shut down. And it could be shut down fairly quickly if you went after the employers. You can darn well bet that if you imprisoned Mrs. Jones down the street for hiring a nanny that was illegally here, or the line manager at a local diner for hiring dishwashers without papers, or Donald Trump for staffing his golf course greens keepering staff with undocumented immigrants, then all of a sudden that market would dry up. Maybe those segments would go out of business, or maybe a steak at your local chop house would be $35 instead of $25. But it would reflect their true cost and worth.

    But these Republicans are not interested in eliminating the market for illegals. They want to make those jobs available but then abuse the workers that fill them. And once in a while a little pat on the hands that are actually responsible.

    Years ago in Baltimore the police got fed up with the disdain the very powerful suburbs showed the city. And for about a week they ran a reverse sting. Instead of undercover cops making covert buys, they made covert “sales”, And 90% of those arrested turned out to be from, you guessed it, the suburbs. And wow, did it have an impact. Unfortunately the pressure was too much. Whether it was corporate giant Mr. Smith who was aghast that Smith Jr. was suddenly arrested and processed like he was one of ‘those’ people, or the powerful people who made 2nd or 3rd removed profits from the trade, they only lasted a week and went back to the old ways.

  7. MarkedMan says:

    Argh! Caught in the Spam can again. Can an administrator rescue my comment?

  8. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: Sorry, let me clarify — they don’t affect legal immigrants any more than they affect American citizens.

    Also, the article was originally posted about 3 months ago. It doesn’t include mention Trump’s proposal to temporarily suspend Muslim immigration.

  9. ernieyeball says:

    Jenos Idanian says:
    Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:36
    No surprise here: the general tone of the comments here about the death of a man is “too bad it too long” and “too bad it was only one guy.”

    Jenny doesn’t seem to have a problem with fabricating quotes to defend insurrectionists who crap all over our laws.
    Would it be fair to say he prefers Bundys Bums instead of the legitimately elected Governor of Oregon?

  10. Jenos Idanian says:

    @ernieyeball: Look up the word “tone,” you dolt. The quotes reflect my opinion of the TONE represented in the comments. Not the specific words, my summary of the tone.

    Got anything relevant, or are you stuck with off-topic fabrications?

  11. ernieyeball says:

    @Jenos are obviously tone deaf.

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    @ernieyeball: So, instead of the topic at hand, you wanna insult me and pick a fight?

    I’ll pass. But it’s kind of you to offer.

  13. Kari Q says:

    Notice that this chart does not ask where candidates stand on deporting all undocumented immigrants. We all know it’s a crazy idea that isn’t going to happen. Maybe Trump supporters know that too. But it’s what they want to happen, and no one else is saying it.

  14. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: In Louisiana they would not accept my son’s US passport as proof of citizenship. Had to be his Birth certificate.

  15. ernieyeball says:

    @Jenos Idanian:..pick a fight?

    Fighting Words
    Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

    …tone deaf.
    Didn’t know you are so thin-skinned!

  16. Jenos Idanian says:

    @ernieyeball: No, just trying to discern your intent here. It’s obviously not to discuss the topic at hand, so the most logical conclusion is pick a fight. Or start an argument, if you prefer.

    Either way, I’ll pass. I’ll go back to considering how only conservatives are able to discern between legal aiens and illegal aliens — such a fine distinction is apparently too subtle for liberals/leftists/Democrats/progressives.

    Or is it that you just hold the legal ones in contempt for being so stupid as to obey the law?