Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 4.2

    Immigration

    In the ANES the gap between Republicans and Democrats in wanting fewer immigrants grew from 3.3 points in 1992 to 28.3 in 2024, and the GSS, the CES and Nationscape show the same divide.

    Affiliation
    NYU Stern
    Published

    In the American National Election Studies (ANES), 57.6%57.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 54.6% to 60.6%n2,170Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of Republicans and 29.2%29.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 26.6% to 31.9%n2,390Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of Democrats said in 2024 that the number of immigrants allowed to come to the United States should be decreased, a gap of 28.3 (95% CI 24.3 to 32.4)28.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 24.3 to 32.4n4,560Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. In 1992 the two shares were 50.1%50.1% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 46.7% to 53.5%n818Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 46.8%46.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 43.8% to 49.8%n1,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File, a gap of 3.3 (95% CI −1.2 to 7.9)3.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −1.2 to 7.9n1,898Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File points that is too small to distinguish from zero. The General Social Survey (GSS) words its question differently and shows the same widening, from 10.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.8)10.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 1.8 to 18.8n735Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2004SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 2004 to 47.5 (95% CI 42.5 to 52.5)47.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 42.5 to 52.5n2,301Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024. The Cooperative Election Study (CES), Nationscape and the 2024 ANES ask about specific policies, and on each of them Republicans were more restrictive than Democrats in every year it was asked, including all 5757 item-yearsEstimandcount of item-years with a Republican minus Democratic gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES immigration policy itemsPeriod2007-2021SourceCooperative Election Study item-years of the CES.

    Each question is scored for its restrictive answer: wanting fewer immigrants, favoring a restrictive policy or saying that immigrants have a bad effect. A gap is the Republican share minus the Democratic share of that answer, in pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused., so a positive gap means that Republicans were more likely to give it. Party includes leanersPartisan leanerA respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses., and independents are the respondents who lean toward neither party. Nationscape asks only the three-category party question, so its Democrats and Republicans exclude leaners and its independents include them. Every interval is a 95% confidence intervalConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise.. Democratic, independent and Republican shares are reported separately, because a gap can widen when either party moves.Shares use the survey weights and cover respondents who answered the item: 32,75132,751 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents with a usable answer (increased, same or decreased)Weightsnone (count)PopulationANES respondents who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod1992-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1111 studiesEstimandcount of study years with the itemWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies that asked the questionPeriod1992-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File ANES studies from 1992 to 2024 and 21,07021,070 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents with a usable answer to letin1aWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS respondents who answered the question on the number of immigrants nowadaysPeriod2004-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1111 surveysEstimandcount of survey years with the itemWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS survey years that asked letin1aPeriod2004-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey GSS surveys from 2004 to 2024 for the questions on the number of immigrants. Answers of don't know are left out. Intervals use the Kish effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [1] and treat the weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight. sample as if respondents had been drawn one by one, which ignores the stages of the sample design. The CES and Nationscape are opt-in panels, so their intervals rest on a model and say nothing about who chose to join.

    Each survey asks in its own words (Figure 1), so a level in one survey is not comparable with a level in another and no line in this chapter joins two surveys. Hainmueller and Hopkins review research on attitudes toward immigration and report that they are only weakly related to a person's own economic circumstances and are shaped more by concern about cultural effects on the nation than by concern about economic effects [2]. Abrajano and Hajnal argue that fears about immigration moved white Americans from the Democratic to the Republican Party [3]. This chapter describes the party divide in the answers themselves and does not test either account.

    Figure 1

    Each survey asks about immigration in its own words and on its own scale

    Question wording or file label, answers offered, years used and the restrictive answer counted, by survey and item

    SurveyItemQuestion wording or file labelAnswersYears usedRestrictive answer counted
    ANES cumulative fileNumber of immigrants (VCF0879, VCF0879a)Do you think the number of immigrants from foreign countries who are permitted to come to the United States to live should be increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot?Five answers; the 2000 study is coded to three (increased, same, decreased)1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024Decreased, a little or a lot
    ANES cumulative fileFeeling thermometer, illegal immigrants (therm_illegal_aliens, from VCF0233)Rating of illegal aliens (cumulative file label) or illegal immigrants (2020 and 2024 studies); the cleaned file recodes the cumulative code 97, which stands for 97 to 100 degrees, to 1000 (cold) to 100 (warm)1988, 1992, 1994, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024Mean rating
    ANES cumulative fileFeeling thermometer, Hispanics (therm_hispanics, from VCF0217)Rating of Hispanics (file label: Chicanos or Hispanics); the cleaned file recodes the code 97 to 100 as above0 (cold) to 100 (warm)1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024Mean rating
    GSSNumber of immigrants, form used from 2004 (letin1a)Number of immigrants nowadays should be: increased a lot, increased a little, remain the same as it is, reduced a little, reduced a lot (file label and answers; the stem is not checked)Five answers2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2024Reduced, a little or a lot
    GSSNumber of immigrants, earlier forms (letin, letin1)letin: increase or decrease immigrants to the US (left the same as it is now); letin1: Do you think the number of immigrants to America nowadays should be increased a lot, increased a little, remain the same as it is, reduced a little, or reduced a lot? (the ARDA documentation of the GSS item)Five answersletin 1994 and 2000; letin1 1996, 2004, 2014, 2024Decreased or reduced, a little or a lot
    GSSImmigrants take jobs away (immjobs, file label)Immigrants take jobs away from people born in America (file label: immigrants take jobs away)Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly1996, 2004, 2014, 2022, 2024Agree or agree strongly
    GSSImmigrants increase crime rates (immcrime, file label)Immigrants increase crime rates (file label)Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly1996, 2004, 2014, 2022, 2024Agree or agree strongly
    GSSImmigrants good for America (immameco, file label)Immigrants are good for America's economy (file label: immigrants good for america)Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly1996, 2004, 2014, 2024Disagree or disagree strongly
    CESStem, 2007 to 2017What do you think the U.S. government should do about immigration? Select all that apply. (The 2007 stem names Congress and the President; the 2014 stem says the government.)Check each item that applies2007 to 2017Item checked (support) or not checked (oppose)
    CESStem, 2018What do you think the U.S. government should do about immigration? Do you support or oppose each of the following? (The guide lists no stem for 2019 to 2021.)Support or oppose each item2018 to 2021Support or oppose each item
    CESMore border patrols (immig_border)Increase the number of border patrols on the U.S.-Mexican border (2011: increase border presence; 2014: increase Border Patrols along the US-Mexico border)Support, oppose2007, 2010 to 2017, 2019 to 2021Support
    CESLegal status for long-term residents (immig_legalize)Grant legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least 3 years, and not been convicted of any felony crimes (2011: amnesty for long term residents)Support, oppose2007, 2010 to 2017, 2019 to 2021Oppose
    CESFines for employers (immig_employer)Fine U.S. businesses that hire illegal immigrants (2010: fine businesses)Support, oppose2007, 2010, 2012 to 2017Support
    CESPolice questioning (immig_police)Allow police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally (2011: police question those reasonably suspected of being illegal)Support, oppose2010 to 2015, 2017Support
    CESIdentify and deport (immig_deport)Identify and deport illegal immigrantsSupport, oppose2014 to 2017Support
    CESBar services (immig_services)Prohibit illegal immigrants from using emergency hospital care and public schoolsSupport, oppose2012, 2013Support
    CESReduce legal immigration (immig_reduce)2018: reduce legal immigration by eliminating the visa lottery and ending family-based migration; 2019: reduce legal immigration by 50 percent; 2020: reduce legal immigration by 50 percent over the next 10 years by eliminating the visa lottery and ending family-based migrationSupport, oppose2018 to 2020Support
    CESPolice must report (immig_report)2017: require local police departments to report to the federal government anyone they identify as an illegal immigrant; 2018 to 2021: withhold federal funds from any local police department that does not report to the federal government anyone they identify as an illegal immigrantSupport, oppose2017 to 2021Support
    CESBorder wall (immig_wall)2017 and 2021: build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; 2018 and 2020: increase spending on border security by 25 billion dollars, including building a wall between the U.S. and MexicoSupport, oppose2017, 2018, 2020, 2021Support
    NationscapeStemWe'd like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following policies:Agree, disagree, not sureJuly 2019 to February 2021Agree, or disagree for the path to citizenship items
    NationscapeBorder wall (wall)Build a wall on the southern US borderAgree, disagree, not sureEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020Agree
    NationscapeDeportation (deportation)Deport all undocumented immigrantsAgree, disagree, not sureEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020Agree
    NationscapePath to citizenship for all (path_to_citizenship)Create a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrantsAgree, disagree, not sureEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020Disagree
    NationscapePath for those brought as children (dreamers)Create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought here as childrenAgree, disagree, not sureEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020Disagree
    ANES 2024Border wall (V241393)Favor or oppose building a wall on border with Mexico (file label)Favor, oppose, neither favor nor oppose2024Favor
    ANES 2024Birthright citizenship (V241387)Favor or oppose ending birthright citizenship (file label)Favor, oppose, neither favor nor oppose2024Favor ending it
    ANES 2024Children brought illegally (V241390)Should children brought illegally be sent back or allowed to stay (file label)Should be sent back; should be allowed to live and work in the US2024Should be sent back
    ANES 2024Policy toward unauthorized immigrants (V241386)US government policy toward unauthorized immigrants (file label)Make felons and send them back; guest worker program; remain and qualify for citizenship if requirements are met; remain and qualify for citizenship without penalties2024Make felons and send them back
    ANES 2024Path to citizenship (V242232)Favor or oppose providing path to citizenship (file label)Favor, oppose, neither favor nor oppose2024Oppose
    ANES 2024Immigration levels (V242227)What should immigration levels be (file label)Increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, decreased a lot2024Decreased, a little or a lot
    ANES 2024Illegal immigration and crime (V242229)Effect of illegal immigration on crime rate (file label)Increase, decrease, have no effect2024Increase
    ANES 2024Immigration and jobs (V242228)How likely immigration will take away jobs (file label)Extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, not at all likely2024Extremely or very likely
    ANES 2024Immigrants and the economy (V242235)Are immigrants generally good or bad for America's economy (file label)Seven answers from extremely good to extremely bad2024Slightly, moderately or extremely bad
    ANES 2024Adapting to customs (V242236)How important is it for immigrants to adapt to customs and traditions of the US (file label)Five answers from not at all important to extremely important2024Very or extremely important
    Show data
    Data for Each survey asks about immigration in its own words and on its own scale
    answerscounteditemsurveywordingyears
    Five answers; the 2000 study is coded to three (increased, same, decreased)Decreased, a little or a lotNumber of immigrants (VCF0879, VCF0879a)ANES cumulative fileDo you think the number of immigrants from foreign countries who are permitted to come to the United States to live should be increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot?1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024
    0 (cold) to 100 (warm)Mean ratingFeeling thermometer, illegal immigrants (therm_illegal_aliens, from VCF0233)ANES cumulative fileRating of illegal aliens (cumulative file label) or illegal immigrants (2020 and 2024 studies); the cleaned file recodes the cumulative code 97, which stands for 97 to 100 degrees, to 1001988, 1992, 1994, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024
    0 (cold) to 100 (warm)Mean ratingFeeling thermometer, Hispanics (therm_hispanics, from VCF0217)ANES cumulative fileRating of Hispanics (file label: Chicanos or Hispanics); the cleaned file recodes the code 97 to 100 as above1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024
    Five answersReduced, a little or a lotNumber of immigrants, form used from 2004 (letin1a)GSSNumber of immigrants nowadays should be: increased a lot, increased a little, remain the same as it is, reduced a little, reduced a lot (file label and answers; the stem is not checked)2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2024
    Five answersDecreased or reduced, a little or a lotNumber of immigrants, earlier forms (letin, letin1)GSSletin: increase or decrease immigrants to the US (left the same as it is now); letin1: Do you think the number of immigrants to America nowadays should be increased a lot, increased a little, remain the same as it is, reduced a little, or reduced a lot? (the ARDA documentation of the GSS item)letin 1994 and 2000; letin1 1996, 2004, 2014, 2024
    Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree stronglyAgree or agree stronglyImmigrants take jobs away (immjobs, file label)GSSImmigrants take jobs away from people born in America (file label: immigrants take jobs away)1996, 2004, 2014, 2022, 2024
    Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree stronglyAgree or agree stronglyImmigrants increase crime rates (immcrime, file label)GSSImmigrants increase crime rates (file label)1996, 2004, 2014, 2022, 2024
    Agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree stronglyDisagree or disagree stronglyImmigrants good for America (immameco, file label)GSSImmigrants are good for America's economy (file label: immigrants good for america)1996, 2004, 2014, 2024
    Check each item that appliesItem checked (support) or not checked (oppose)Stem, 2007 to 2017CESWhat do you think the U.S. government should do about immigration? Select all that apply. (The 2007 stem names Congress and the President; the 2014 stem says the government.)2007 to 2017
    Support or oppose each itemSupport or oppose each itemStem, 2018CESWhat do you think the U.S. government should do about immigration? Do you support or oppose each of the following? (The guide lists no stem for 2019 to 2021.)2018 to 2021
    Support, opposeSupportMore border patrols (immig_border)CESIncrease the number of border patrols on the U.S.-Mexican border (2011: increase border presence; 2014: increase Border Patrols along the US-Mexico border)2007, 2010 to 2017, 2019 to 2021
    Support, opposeOpposeLegal status for long-term residents (immig_legalize)CESGrant legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least 3 years, and not been convicted of any felony crimes (2011: amnesty for long term residents)2007, 2010 to 2017, 2019 to 2021
    Support, opposeSupportFines for employers (immig_employer)CESFine U.S. businesses that hire illegal immigrants (2010: fine businesses)2007, 2010, 2012 to 2017
    Support, opposeSupportPolice questioning (immig_police)CESAllow police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally (2011: police question those reasonably suspected of being illegal)2010 to 2015, 2017
    Support, opposeSupportIdentify and deport (immig_deport)CESIdentify and deport illegal immigrants2014 to 2017
    Support, opposeSupportBar services (immig_services)CESProhibit illegal immigrants from using emergency hospital care and public schools2012, 2013
    Support, opposeSupportReduce legal immigration (immig_reduce)CES2018: reduce legal immigration by eliminating the visa lottery and ending family-based migration; 2019: reduce legal immigration by 50 percent; 2020: reduce legal immigration by 50 percent over the next 10 years by eliminating the visa lottery and ending family-based migration2018 to 2020
    Support, opposeSupportPolice must report (immig_report)CES2017: require local police departments to report to the federal government anyone they identify as an illegal immigrant; 2018 to 2021: withhold federal funds from any local police department that does not report to the federal government anyone they identify as an illegal immigrant2017 to 2021
    Support, opposeSupportBorder wall (immig_wall)CES2017 and 2021: build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; 2018 and 2020: increase spending on border security by 25 billion dollars, including building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico2017, 2018, 2020, 2021
    Agree, disagree, not sureAgree, or disagree for the path to citizenship itemsStemNationscapeWe'd like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following policies:July 2019 to February 2021
    Agree, disagree, not sureAgreeBorder wall (wall)NationscapeBuild a wall on the southern US borderEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020
    Agree, disagree, not sureAgreeDeportation (deportation)NationscapeDeport all undocumented immigrantsEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020
    Agree, disagree, not sureDisagreePath to citizenship for all (path_to_citizenship)NationscapeCreate a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrantsEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020
    Agree, disagree, not sureDisagreePath for those brought as children (dreamers)NationscapeCreate a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought here as childrenEvery week, July 2019 to December 2020
    Favor, oppose, neither favor nor opposeFavorBorder wall (V241393)ANES 2024Favor or oppose building a wall on border with Mexico (file label)2024
    Favor, oppose, neither favor nor opposeFavor ending itBirthright citizenship (V241387)ANES 2024Favor or oppose ending birthright citizenship (file label)2024
    Should be sent back; should be allowed to live and work in the USShould be sent backChildren brought illegally (V241390)ANES 2024Should children brought illegally be sent back or allowed to stay (file label)2024
    Make felons and send them back; guest worker program; remain and qualify for citizenship if requirements are met; remain and qualify for citizenship without penaltiesMake felons and send them backPolicy toward unauthorized immigrants (V241386)ANES 2024US government policy toward unauthorized immigrants (file label)2024
    Favor, oppose, neither favor nor opposeOpposePath to citizenship (V242232)ANES 2024Favor or oppose providing path to citizenship (file label)2024
    Increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, decreased a lotDecreased, a little or a lotImmigration levels (V242227)ANES 2024What should immigration levels be (file label)2024
    Increase, decrease, have no effectIncreaseIllegal immigration and crime (V242229)ANES 2024Effect of illegal immigration on crime rate (file label)2024
    Extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, not at all likelyExtremely or very likelyImmigration and jobs (V242228)ANES 2024How likely immigration will take away jobs (file label)2024
    Seven answers from extremely good to extremely badSlightly, moderately or extremely badImmigrants and the economy (V242235)ANES 2024Are immigrants generally good or bad for America's economy (file label)2024
    Five answers from not at all important to extremely importantVery or extremely importantAdapting to customs (V242236)ANES 2024How important is it for immigrants to adapt to customs and traditions of the US (file label)2024
    The surveys differ in the number of answers, in whether an item names a policy or a group and in the stem that introduces it, so levels are not comparable across surveys. Each row gives the wording as the survey or its documentation words it; where only the file label is available the row says so.Note: The ANES wording is as documented for the 2000, 2004 and 2008 studies; small wording differences in other studies are noted in the ANES cumulative file documentation and are not tested here.Note: CES wording is quoted from the guide to the Cumulative CES Policy Preferences file; the file's own item labels are shorter. Nationscape wording is from the week 1 codebook. ANES 2024 rows give the file label because the full question text was not checked.Note: Each item's restrictive answer is the one counted in every figure. The CES wording changes by year for the border patrol, legal status, police questioning, fines, reduce, report and wall items as shown.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File and 2024 Time Series, General Social Survey, CES cumulative policy preferences guide and Nationscape codebook; question wording only, no weights apply

    The ANES gap opened between 2008 and 2016

    Figure 2 plots the gap in each survey year. In the ANES the interval includes zero in 66 studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the 95% interval of the Republican minus Democratic gap includes zeroWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies from 1992 to 2008Period1992-2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 77 studiesEstimandcount of study years with the itemWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies from 1992 to 2008Period1992-2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies from 1992 to 2008. The exception is 2000, at 8.0 (95% CI 2.4 to 13.6)8.0 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 2.4 to 13.6n1,515Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2000SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. The gap was 15.1 (95% CI 11.2 to 18.9)15.1 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.2 to 18.9n4,664Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2012, and every ANES interval from that year on lies above zero. It reached 34.3 (95% CI 30.4 to 38.3)34.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 30.4 to 38.3n3,140Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2016 and was 30.6 (95% CI 27.7 to 33.4)30.6 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 27.7 to 33.4n6,486Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 28.3 (95% CI 24.3 to 32.4)28.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 24.3 to 32.4n4,560Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. The change from 2020 to 2024 is −2.2 (95% CI −7.2 to 2.7)−2.2 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap (two separate samples); the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −7.2 to 2.7n11,046Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero and excludes a change as large as the rise of 19.3 (95% CI 13.8 to 24.8)19.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap (two separate samples); the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 13.8 to 24.8n7,804Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points from 2012 to 2016. These estimates use the cumulative file weight. With the post-election weight, which the file has for 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016, 2020 and 2024 but not for the other studies with this question, the 2020 gap is 29.3 (95% CI 26.4 to 32.3)29.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share with the post-election weight; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 26.4 to 32.3n6,486Weightsweight_postelection (VCF9999)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File and the 2024 gap is 28.9 (95% CI 25.0 to 32.9)28.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share with the post-election weight; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 25.0 to 32.9n4,560Weightsweight_postelection (VCF9999)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, and the change between them is −0.4 (95% CI −5.4 to 4.6)−0.4 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap with the post-election weight; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −5.4 to 4.6n11,046Weightsweight_postelection (VCF9999)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. The all-respondent gaps also combine interview modes. Among in-person respondents the gap was 5.6 (95% CI −0.3 to 11.5)5.6 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −0.3 to 11.5n1,799Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2008, 31.2 (95% CI 23.8 to 38.6)31.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 23.8 to 38.6n930Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016 and 20.3 (95% CI 11.5 to 29.1)20.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.5 to 29.1n849Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, so the opening and the high 2024 level appear in person too, and the mode section compares them.

    The date of the opening depends on the test, as Chapter 1.3, Sort dates by attitude shows for other attitudes. That chapter calls a party gap large when it passes 0.250.25 standard deviations of the answerEstimandthreshold of the sort-date rule of the chapter Sort dates by attitudeWeightsnone (count)Populationthe party gap on an attitudePeriodall study yearsSourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviationsStandard deviationA measure of how far values typically fall from their average. A larger standard deviation means the values are more spread out. (SD) of the answers and dates the passage by the first study from which the gap stays above the mark. Applied to the five-category version of this question, which runs from increased a lot to decreased a lot, the point estimate passes the mark in 20122012 yearEstimandfirst study year in which the point estimate of the Republican minus Democratic gap in the z-score exceeds the rule and stays above it in every later studyWeightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod1992-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File and the lower end of the interval passes it in 20162016 yearEstimandfirst study year in which the lower end of the 95% interval of the Republican minus Democratic gap in the z-score exceeds the rule and stays above it in every later studyWeightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod1992-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The lower end in 2012 is 0.2480.248 standard deviations of the answerEstimandlower end of the 95% interval of the Republican minus Democratic gap in the within-year z-score of the five-category answer (VCF0879)n4,664Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File SD, just under the mark, and it is 0.25000.2500 standard deviations of the answerEstimandlower end of the 95% interval of the Republican minus Democratic gap in the z-score of the five-category answer (VCF0879) standardized among party identifiers onlyn4,664Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File SD when the answers are standardized among party identifiers only, so the lower-bound date turns on how the answers are standardized. The 2012 gap is 0.237 (95% CI 0.102 to 0.372)0.237 standard deviations of the answerEstimandRepublican minus Democratic gap in the within-year z-score of the five-category answer (VCF0879), standardized within the modeInterval95% CI 0.102 to 0.372n1,632Weightsweight_ftfPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File SD among in-person respondents, under the mark, and 0.372 (95% CI 0.280 to 0.464)0.372 standard deviations of the answerEstimandRepublican minus Democratic gap in the within-year z-score of the five-category answer (VCF0879), standardized within the modeInterval95% CI 0.280 to 0.464n3,032Weightsweight_webPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed on the web who answered the five-category ANES question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File among web respondents, so the 2012 point date rests on web respondents. The intervals ignore the stages of the sample design and may be wider. The ANES fields a study only in election years, so the data cannot place the opening more closely than the span from 2008 to 2016.

    The GSS asked about the number of immigrants nowadays in 1111 surveysEstimandcount of survey years with the itemWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS survey years that asked letin1aPeriod2004-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey surveys from 2004 to 2024, with none in 2020. Its gap was 10.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.8)10.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 1.8 to 18.8n735Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2004SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 2004 and 12.8 (95% CI 4.8 to 20.7)12.8 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 4.8 to 20.7n994Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2012SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2012. It rose to 34.4 (95% CI 28.5 to 40.2)34.4 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 28.5 to 40.2n1,479Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2016 and reached 41.6 (95% CI 35.9 to 47.2)41.6 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 35.9 to 47.2n2,511Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2022SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2022 and 47.5 (95% CI 42.5 to 52.5)47.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 42.5 to 52.5n2,301Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024. The GSS interval lies above zero in every survey, and the ANES interval does not until 2012. Before 2004 the GSS asked earlier forms of the question in 1994, 1996 and 2000, drawn as open points. The gaps there were 6.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 12.6)6.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the earlier GSS form of the question on the number of immigrants (letin in 1994 and 2000, letin1 in 1996), answer decreased or reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 0.3 to 12.6n1,174Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod1994SourceGeneral Social Survey, 6.5 (95% CI −0.3 to 13.4)6.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the earlier GSS form of the question on the number of immigrants (letin in 1994 and 2000, letin1 in 1996), answer decreased or reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI −0.3 to 13.4n958Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod1996SourceGeneral Social Survey and 3.3 (95% CI −3.5 to 10.1)3.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the earlier GSS form of the question on the number of immigrants (letin in 1994 and 2000, letin1 in 1996), answer decreased or reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI −3.5 to 10.1n1,027Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2000SourceGeneral Social Survey points, small again. The GSS asked both the form used in 1996 and the form used from 2004 in 2004, 2014 and 2024, and the two gaps differ by at most 7.27.2 percentage pointsEstimandlargest absolute difference between the gap on letin1 and the gap on letin1a (the two forms went to different respondents in 2004 and partly to the same respondents in 2014 and 2024)Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2004, 2014 and 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points in those years. In 2004 the two forms went to different respondents and the difference between their gaps is 1.3 (95% CI −10.1 to 12.7)1.3 percentage pointsEstimandgap on letin1 minus gap on letin1a (Republican minus Democratic share; different respondents in 2004)Interval95% CI −10.1 to 12.7n1,638Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2004SourceGeneral Social Survey points; in 2014 and 2024, 65%65% share of respondentsEstimandshare of letin1 respondents who also answered letin1a (count, unweighted)Weightsnone (respondent count)PopulationGSS respondents who answered letin1Period2014SourceGeneral Social Survey and 99%99% share of respondentsEstimandshare of letin1 respondents who also answered letin1a (count, unweighted)Weightsnone (respondent count)PopulationGSS respondents who answered letin1Period2024SourceGeneral Social Survey of the respondents who answered the earlier form also answered the later one.

    Figure 2

    Republicans and Democrats grew apart on wanting fewer immigrants in both surveys

    Republican minus Democratic share wanting the number of immigrants decreased (ANES) or reduced (GSS), party identifiers including leaners, 1992 to 2024; 95% intervals

    Republican minus Democratic gap (points)

    Show data
    Data for Republicans and Democrats grew apart on wanting fewer immigrants in both surveys
    SurveyYearEarlier GSS formGap (points)LowerUpperRespondents
    ANES1992no3.3−1.27.91,898
    ANES1994no1.9−3.37.11,545
    ANES1996no4.9−1.010.81,367
    ANES1998no1.0−5.57.51,094
    ANES2000no8.02.413.61,515
    ANES2004no4.2−2.811.3933
    ANES2008no5.6−0.311.51,799
    ANES2012no15.111.218.94,664
    ANES2016no34.330.438.33,140
    ANES2020no30.627.733.46,486
    ANES2024no28.324.332.44,560
    ANES in person2008no5.6−0.311.51,799
    ANES in person2012no9.83.116.51,632
    ANES in person2016no31.223.838.6930
    ANES in person2020non/an/an/an/a
    ANES in person2024no20.311.529.1849
    GSS2004no10.31.818.8735
    GSS2006no16.310.422.21,550
    GSS2008no7.70.414.91,074
    GSS2010no18.611.425.81,119
    GSS2012no12.84.820.7994
    GSS2014no21.915.528.41,261
    GSS2016no34.428.540.21,479
    GSS2018no32.325.439.21,175
    GSS2021no39.734.944.42,038
    GSS2022no41.635.947.22,511
    GSS2024no47.542.552.52,301
    GSS earlier forms1994yes6.50.312.61,174
    GSS earlier forms1996yes6.5−0.313.4958
    GSS earlier forms2000yes3.3−3.510.11,027
    Both gaps are smaller before 2014 than from 2016 on, when they are 34.3 points in the ANES and 34.4 in the GSS in 2016. In 2024 the gap is 47.5 in the GSS, 28.3 among all ANES respondents and 20.3 among in-person ANES respondents, who are the like-for-like series from 2008. A value above zero means Republicans were more likely than Democrats to give the restrictive answer. Each line joins survey years, each band is a 95% confidence interval, open points are earlier forms of the GSS question, and the shaded band marks the change in ANES survey mode between 2016 and 2020.Note: The in-person ANES line uses the mode weights of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024 and has no 2020 point because the 2020 study had no in-person interviews; all-respondent ANES estimates from 2012 combine in-person and web samples.Note: Open GSS points before 2004 use two earlier GSS variables with the same five answers: letin in 1994 and 2000 and letin1 in 1996. The GSS asked both letin1 and letin1a in 2004, 2014 and 2024; the text compares the two forms in those years.Note: GSS interviews were mostly in person through 2018, mostly on the web in 2021, and in both modes in 2022 and 2024. A party cell needs at least 150 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100; a gap needs both parties to clear that floor.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1992-2024, and General Social Survey, 1994-2024; weighted (weight, VCF0009z; weight_use)

    The Democratic share fell in every view, and the Republican path depends on survey and mode

    Figure 3 shows the shares behind the gaps in three views. The all-interview ANES line combines modes: web respondents were none of the 2008 respondents with a party and 70%70% share of respondentsEstimandshare interviewed by web (count, unweighted)Weightsnone (respondent count)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 2016 respondents, so a change in an all-respondent share partly reflects who was interviewed, and the in-person view is the like-for-like series. Among in-person respondents the Democratic share fell from 42.3%42.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 38.7% to 45.9%n1,203Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008 to 23.0%23.0% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 18.3% to 27.7%n475Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016, a change of −19.3 (95% CI −25.2 to −13.4)−19.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share, in-person respondents only; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −25.2 to −13.4n1,678Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and the Republican share rose from 47.9%47.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 43.2% to 52.5%n596Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File to 54.2%54.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 48.5% to 59.9%n455Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File, a change of 6.3 (95% CI −1.0 to 13.7)6.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share, in-person respondents only; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −1.0 to 13.7n1,051Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero. For all respondents the two changes are −13.9 (95% CI −18.4 to −9.5)−13.9 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −18.4 to −9.5n2,867Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 14.8 (95% CI 9.3 to 20.3)14.8 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 9.3 to 20.3n2,072Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. From 1992 to 2024 the in-person Democratic share changed by −22.7 (95% CI −29.0 to −16.3)−22.7 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share, in-person respondents only; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −29.0 to −16.3n1,540Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points and the in-person Republican share by −5.7 (95% CI −13.3 to 2.0)−5.7 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share, in-person respondents only; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −13.3 to 2.0n1,207Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, an interval that includes zero, against −17.6 (95% CI −21.6 to −13.6)−17.6 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −21.6 to −13.6n3,470Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 7.5 (95% CI 2.9 to 12.1)7.5 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 2.9 to 12.1n2,988Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File for all respondents.

    The 2020 study has no mode split. Both party shares were lower in 2020 than in any other study, at 14.0%14.0% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 12.4% to 15.6%n3,443Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 44.6%44.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 42.3% to 46.9%n3,043Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File, and both rose from 2020 to 2024, by 15.2 (95% CI 12.1 to 18.3)15.2 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 12.1 to 18.3n5,833Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 13.0 (95% CI 9.2 to 16.8)13.0 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 9.2 to 16.8n5,213Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. Wanting more immigrants moved on the Democratic side as well: the share of Democrats who said the number should be increased was 10.2%10.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer increasedInterval95% CI 8.4% to 12.0%n1,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1992, 46.5%46.5% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer increasedInterval95% CI 44.2% to 48.8%n3,443Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 24.4%24.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer increasedInterval95% CI 21.9% to 26.9%n2,390Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, against 11.3%11.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer increasedInterval95% CI 9.9% to 12.8%n3,043Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File of Republicans in 2020. Among all respondents the share wanting fewer immigrants was 48.7%48.7% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 46.6% to 50.8%n2,168Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationall respondents who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1992, 28.4%28.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 27.0% to 29.8%n7,350Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationall respondents who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 42.9%42.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 40.9% to 45.0%n4,898Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationall respondents who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024.

    The GSS shows the Democratic fall in one mode for most of its series. The Democratic share was 51.2%51.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 46.5% to 55.9%n641Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2008 and 26.9%26.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 23.2% to 30.5%n862Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2016, a change of −24.3 (95% CI −30.2 to −18.3)−24.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −30.2 to −18.3n1,503Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and it changed by a further −9.1 (95% CI −13.9 to −4.3)−9.1 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −13.9 to −4.3n2,270Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey points to 2022. The Republican share changed by 2.4 (95% CI −4.7 to 9.6)2.4 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −4.7 to 9.6n1,050Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey points from 2008 to 2016, an interval that includes zero and allows a rise of up to 9.69.6 percentage pointsEstimandupper end of the 95% interval of the later minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)n1,050Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and by −1.9 (95% CI −8.5 to 4.6)−1.9 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −8.5 to 4.6n1,720Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2022SourceGeneral Social Survey points from 2016 to 2022, with a change of −8.9 (95% CI −16.3 to −1.6)−8.9 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −16.3 to −1.6n1,130Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2018SourceGeneral Social Survey points from 2016 to 2018. From 2022 to 2024 both shares rose, the Republican share by 17.0 (95% CI 11.2 to 22.9)17.0 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 11.2 to 22.9n2,192Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2022 to 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points to 76.4%76.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 72.9% to 79.8%n1,089Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey and the Democratic share by 11.1 (95% CI 6.4 to 15.9)11.1 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 6.4 to 15.9n2,620Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2022 to 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points to 28.9%28.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 25.3% to 32.5%n1,212Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey. In the GSS, then, the gap opened on the Democratic side through 2022, and the 2024 rise came from both parties.

    The two surveys agree on the Democratic fall and, within mode, on the lack of a reliable Republican change from 2008 to 2016. The ANES all-respondent change in the Republican share differs from the GSS change by 12.4 (95% CI 3.3 to 21.4)12.4 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the Republican share wanting fewer immigrants among all ANES respondents minus the change in the GSS (different questions, separate samples)Interval95% CI 3.3 to 21.4n3,122Weightsweight, weight_ftf (ANES) and weight_use (GSS)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and the in-person ANES change differs from it by 3.9 (95% CI −6.4 to 14.2)3.9 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the Republican share wanting fewer immigrants among in-person ANES respondents minus the change in the GSS (different questions, separate samples)Interval95% CI −6.4 to 14.2n2,101Weightsweight, weight_ftf (ANES) and weight_use (GSS)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2008 to 2016SourceGeneral Social Survey points, an interval that includes zero. They disagree after 2016: the in-person ANES Republican share changed by −9.8 (95% CI −18.6 to −0.9)−9.8 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share, in-person respondents only; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −18.6 to −0.9n844Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points to 2024 and the GSS Republican share by 15.1 (95% CI 9.4 to 20.8)15.1 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lot (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 9.4 to 20.8n1,706Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points. The Republican level in 2024 is 57.6%57.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 54.6% to 60.6%n2,170Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File among all ANES respondents and 44.4%44.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 37.6% to 51.3%n389Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in person, against 76.4%76.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 72.9% to 79.8%n1,089Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in the GSS and 78.0%78.0% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 72.4% to 83.6%n378Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceGeneral Social Survey in person. The questions differ, so the comparison across surveys is one of direction and timing.

    Independent estimates sit between the party estimates in all 33 studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the independent share lies between the Democratic and Republican sharesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies from 2016 to 2024Period2016-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File ANES studies from 2016 to 2024 and in 99 surveysEstimandcount of surveys in which the independent share lies between the Democratic and Republican sharesWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS surveys with a reliable independent estimatePeriod2004-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey of the 1010 surveysEstimandcount of surveys in which an independent cell clears the suppression floorWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS surveys with a reliable independent estimatePeriod2004-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey GSS surveys that have a reliable independent estimate. Before 2016 the ANES independent estimate is above both party estimates in 55 studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the independent share is above both party sharesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies before 2016 with an independent estimatePeriod1992-2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 77 studiesEstimandcount of studies in which an independent cell clears the suppression floorWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies before 2016 with an independent estimatePeriod1992-2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies with an independent estimate, as in 2008, when it was 50.1%50.1% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 41.9% to 58.2%n227Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationindependents who lean toward neither party who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File against 47.9%47.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 43.2% to 52.5%n596Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File for Republicans and 42.3%42.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 38.7% to 45.9%n1,203Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File for Democrats. No independent minus Republican interval in those studies excludes zero; in 2008 the difference is 2.2 (95% CI −7.2 to 11.6)2.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted independent share minus weighted Republican share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −7.2 to 11.6n823Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers and independents who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File points.

    Figure 3

    The Democratic share wanting fewer immigrants fell in every view, and the Republican path differs by survey and interview mode

    Share wanting the number of immigrants decreased (ANES) or reduced (GSS), by party identification; leaners are in the parties and independents lean toward neither; all respondents dashed; 95% intervals

    Share giving the restrictive answer (%)

    Show data
    Data for The Democratic share wanting fewer immigrants fell in every view, and the Republican path differs by survey and interview mode
    Survey and answerGroupYearEarlier GSS formShare (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents1992no48.746.650.82,168
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents1994no66.464.068.91,730
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents1996no58.956.161.71,499
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents1998no50.747.753.71,245
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2000no47.044.449.61,742
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2004no47.744.451.01,047
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2008no45.342.647.92,061
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2012no44.442.646.25,390
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2016no43.841.845.73,621
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2020no28.427.029.87,350
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)All respondents2024no42.940.945.04,898
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats1992no46.843.849.81,080
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats1994no65.361.768.9813
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats1996no56.752.860.6785
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats1998no49.845.654.0639
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2000no42.939.246.7857
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2004no44.439.549.3494
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2008no42.338.745.91,203
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2012no36.534.139.02,837
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2016no28.325.731.01,664
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2020no14.012.415.63,443
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Democrats2024no29.226.631.92,390
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents1992no52.446.358.5261
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents1994no68.260.675.9175
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents1996no60.651.070.1129
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents1998no53.844.762.8140
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2000no52.444.859.9215
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2008no50.141.958.2227
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2012no51.046.155.8708
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2016no42.136.747.4465
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2020no26.522.430.6844
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Independents2024no45.237.253.3318
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans1992no50.146.753.5818
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans1994no67.263.470.9732
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans1996no61.657.266.0582
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans1998no50.845.855.8455
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2000no50.946.855.1658
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2004no48.743.653.7439
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2008no47.943.252.5596
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2012no51.648.754.51,827
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2016no62.759.765.61,476
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2020no44.642.346.93,043
    ANES: decreased (all interviews)Republicans2024no57.654.660.62,170
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents1992no48.746.650.82,168
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents1994no66.464.068.91,730
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents1996no58.956.161.71,499
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents1998no50.747.753.71,245
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2000non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2004no47.744.451.01,047
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2008no45.342.647.92,061
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2012no41.037.944.11,842
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2016no38.134.441.81,042
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2020non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)All respondents2024no33.929.638.3904
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats1992no46.843.849.81,080
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats1994no65.361.768.9813
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats1996no56.752.860.6785
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats1998no49.845.654.0639
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2000non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2004no44.439.549.3494
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2008no42.338.745.91,203
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2012no35.831.739.91,123
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2016no23.018.327.7475
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2020non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Democrats2024no24.118.529.8460
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents1992no52.446.358.5261
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents1994no68.260.675.9175
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents1996no60.651.070.1129
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents1998no53.844.762.8140
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents2000non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents2008no50.141.958.2227
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents2012no47.638.057.2194
    ANES: decreased (in person)Independents2020non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans1992no50.146.753.5818
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans1994no67.263.470.9732
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans1996no61.657.266.0582
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans1998no50.845.855.8455
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2000non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2004no48.743.653.7439
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2008no47.943.252.5596
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2012no45.640.351.0509
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2016no54.248.559.9455
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2020non/an/an/an/a
    ANES: decreased (in person)Republicans2024no44.437.651.3389
    GSS: reducedAll respondents1994yes64.261.467.11,397
    GSS: reducedAll respondents1996yes64.160.967.21,141
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2000yes43.240.246.21,318
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2004no51.547.655.4890
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2006no52.649.955.31,945
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2008no52.749.456.01,294
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2010no48.345.051.51,393
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2012no46.142.749.61,262
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2014no44.541.747.41,624
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2016no41.138.443.91,845
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2018no34.231.137.31,520
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2021no31.529.333.72,670
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2022no35.933.338.43,440
    GSS: reducedAll respondents2024no49.747.252.13,187
    GSS: reducedDemocrats1994yes62.858.667.0656
    GSS: reducedDemocrats1996yes60.455.765.1531
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2000yes41.937.446.4581
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2004no47.441.453.3389
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2006no46.342.350.3895
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2008no51.246.555.9641
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2010no41.837.046.7658
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2012no40.836.145.6607
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2014no35.331.239.4746
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2016no26.923.230.5862
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2018no20.016.223.9662
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2021no15.112.617.71,220
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2022no17.814.720.91,408
    GSS: reducedDemocrats2024no28.925.332.51,212
    GSS: reducedIndependents1994yes59.952.167.8183
    GSS: reducedIndependents1996yes65.156.473.8160
    GSS: reducedIndependents2000yes42.535.549.5263
    GSS: reducedIndependents2006no48.442.054.7358
    GSS: reducedIndependents2008no43.935.652.2194
    GSS: reducedIndependents2010no43.936.051.7231
    GSS: reducedIndependents2012no47.338.955.6231
    GSS: reducedIndependents2014no42.736.349.1311
    GSS: reducedIndependents2016no38.932.045.9307
    GSS: reducedIndependents2018no30.523.637.4276
    GSS: reducedIndependents2021no32.327.537.1546
    GSS: reducedIndependents2022no30.225.235.2797
    GSS: reducedIndependents2024no41.336.446.2778
    GSS: reducedRepublicans1994yes69.364.873.8518
    GSS: reducedRepublicans1996yes66.962.071.9427
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2000yes45.240.250.3446
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2004no57.751.663.8346
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2006no62.658.266.9655
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2008no58.853.364.4433
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2010no60.455.065.8461
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2012no53.647.260.0387
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2014no57.252.262.2515
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2016no61.356.765.8617
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2018no52.346.558.1513
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2021no54.850.758.9818
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2022no59.354.664.01,103
    GSS: reducedRepublicans2024no76.472.979.81,089
    The Democratic line falls in every view. Among all ANES respondents, who include web interviews from 2012, the Republican line rises to 62.7% in 2016; among in-person respondents it is 54.2% in 2016 and 44.4% in 2024. In the GSS view the Republican line is 59.3% in 2022 and 76.4% in 2024. Bands are 95% confidence intervals, open points are earlier forms of the GSS question, and the shaded band marks a change of survey mode. The two questions differ, so only direction and timing are comparable.Note: Shaded band: the ANES mode change from 2016 to 2020 in the ANES views, and the GSS move from in-person to web interviews between 2018 and 2021 in the GSS view. The in-person ANES view has no 2000 point (a study that mixed in-person and telephone interviews) and no 2020 point (no in-person interviews).Note: An independent cell is drawn only where it has at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100, so some independent points are missing.Note: The ANES asks five answers (three in 2000) and the chapter counts decreased, a little or a lot, against increased or left the same; the GSS counts reduced a little and reduced a lot against the other three answers.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1992-2024, and General Social Survey, 1994-2024; weighted (weight, VCF0009z; weight_use)

    The opening holds within each interview mode

    The ANES interviewed mainly in person through 2008, then added a web sample next to the in-person sample in 2012, 2016 and 2024, with separate weights for each. The 2020 study had no in-person interviews and no weights by mode [4]. The GSS interviewed mainly in person through 2018, mostly on the web in 2021 (88%88% share of interviewsEstimandshare of interviews by web (count)Weightsnone (interview count)PopulationGSS 2021 respondents who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2021SourceGeneral Social Survey of respondents who answered the question, counted without weights) and in both modes in 2022 and 2024. Interview modeSurvey modeHow respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion. can change answers, and Figure 4 compares the modes.

    The ANES gap rose between 2012 and 2016 by 21.4 (95% CI 11.4 to 31.4)21.4 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap within one mode; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.4 to 31.4n2,562Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level question, in-person respondentsPeriod2012 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points among in-person respondents and by 18.0 (95% CI 11.4 to 24.6)18.0 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap within one mode; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.4 to 24.6n5,242Weightsweight_web (web mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level question, web respondentsPeriod2012 to 2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File among web respondents, so the opening does not depend on mode. The web gap is larger than the in-person gap in every year by the estimates, by 8.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 16.4)8.2 percentage pointsEstimandweb gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 0.0 to 16.4n4,664Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File, 4.8 (95% CI −3.9 to 13.5)4.8 percentage pointsEstimandweb gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −3.9 to 13.5n3,140Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 14.2 (95% CI 3.4 to 25.0)14.2 percentage pointsEstimandweb gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 3.4 to 25.0n2,432Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2012, 2016 and 2024. The 2016 interval includes zero and allows a difference of up to 13.513.5 percentage pointsEstimandupper end of the 95% interval of the web gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedn3,140Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and the 2012 interval begins at zero. The 2024 all-respondent gap of 28.328.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 24.3 to 32.4n4,560Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points lies between the in-person gap of 20.320.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.5 to 29.1n849Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File and the web gap of 34.534.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 28.3 to 40.6n1,583Weightsweight_web (web mode weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, web interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File. The difference comes from Republicans: 44.4%44.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 37.6% to 51.3%n389Weightsweight_ftf (in-person mode weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File of in-person Republican respondents wanted fewer immigrants and 63.8%63.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 59.2% to 68.3%n736Weightsweight_web (web mode weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024, web interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File of web respondents, a difference of 19.3 (95% CI 11.1 to 27.5)19.3 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.1 to 27.5n1,125Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points.

    The GSS Republican rise to 2024 does not depend on mode. Among in-person respondents the Republican share rose from 54.8%54.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 47.6% to 61.9%n500Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2022, in-person interviewsSourceGeneral Social Survey in 2022 to 78.0%78.0% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 72.4% to 83.6%n378Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024, by 23.3 (95% CI 14.2 to 32.3)23.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted Republican share within one mode; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 14.2 to 32.3n878Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrants, in-person respondentsPeriod2022 to 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and among web respondents it rose by 10.2 (95% CI 2.3 to 18.1)10.2 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted Republican share within one mode; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 2.3 to 18.1n1,090Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrants, web respondentsPeriod2022 to 2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points. In 2024 the Republican shares in the two modes differ by −0.4 (95% CI −7.7 to 6.9)−0.4 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI −7.7 to 6.9n972Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points, an interval that excludes a difference as large as the ANES difference. The GSS web gap is higher than the in-person gap by the estimates in both years, by 13.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 25.0)13.5 percentage pointsEstimandweb gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 2.0 to 25.0n2,266Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2022SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 2022 and 7.6 (95% CI −3.2 to 18.4)7.6 percentage pointsEstimandweb gap minus in-person gap, Republican minus Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants nowadays (letin1a), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI −3.2 to 18.4n2,032Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the GSS question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024, an interval that includes zero.

    The 2020 ANES cannot be split by mode, and the earlier mode differences do not account for its fall. Both party shares fell from 2016 to 2020, by −14.3 (95% CI −17.4 to −11.2)−14.3 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −17.4 to −11.2n5,107Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File points among Democrats and −18.1 (95% CI −21.8 to −14.3)−18.1 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreased (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −21.8 to −14.3n4,519Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File among Republicans, and the gap changed by −3.8 (95% CI −8.6 to 1.1)−3.8 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap (two separate samples); the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −8.6 to 1.1n9,626Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero and reaches −8.6−8.6 percentage pointsEstimandlower end of the 95% interval of the later minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap (two separate samples); the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedn9,626Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2016 to 2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. In the other years web respondents gave the restrictive answer more often than in-person respondents, by 9.39.3 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 3.0 to 15.7n1,827Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File, 12.112.1 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 5.5 to 18.7n1,476Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 19.319.3 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 11.1 to 27.5n1,125Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points among Republicans and by 1.11.1 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −4.0 to 6.3n2,837Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File, 7.37.3 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI 1.7 to 13.0n1,664Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 5.15.1 percentage pointsEstimandweb share minus in-person share; the ANES question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a), answer decreasedInterval95% CI −1.8 to 12.1n1,307Weightsweight_ftf and weight_web (mode weights)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES immigration level questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File among Democrats. The 2020 study had no in-person interviews, so a mode effect of that sign predicts a rise, and the shares fell. The 2020 modes (web, video and telephone) differ from the modes of the other years, so the data cannot say what a 2020 mode effect would be, and the chapter reports the 2020 fall without interpreting it.

    Figure 4

    The ANES gap opened within each interview mode, and ANES web respondents were more restrictive than in-person respondents

    Changes in the Republican minus Democratic gap within one mode, and web minus in-person differences in the gap and in the Republican share; leaners included; 95% intervals

    Change in the gap within one mode

    Web minus in-person gap, same year

    Web minus in-person Republican share, same year

    Change or difference (percentage points)

    Show data
    Data for The ANES gap opened within each interview mode, and ANES web respondents were more restrictive than in-person respondents
    PanelComparisonEstimate (points)LowerUpperRespondents
    Change in the gap within one modeANES in person, 2012 to 201621.411.431.42,562
    Change in the gap within one modeANES web, 2012 to 201618.011.424.65,242
    Change in the gap within one modeGSS in person, 2022 to 20246.6−5.518.61,909
    Change in the gap within one modeGSS web, 2022 to 20240.7−9.610.92,389
    Web minus in-person gap, same yearANES 20128.20.016.44,664
    Web minus in-person gap, same yearANES 20164.8−3.913.53,140
    Web minus in-person gap, same yearANES 202414.23.425.02,432
    Web minus in-person gap, same yearGSS 202213.52.025.02,266
    Web minus in-person gap, same yearGSS 20247.6−3.218.42,032
    Web minus in-person Republican share, same yearANES 20129.33.015.71,827
    Web minus in-person Republican share, same yearANES 201612.15.518.71,476
    Web minus in-person Republican share, same yearANES 202419.311.127.51,125
    Web minus in-person Republican share, same yearGSS 202212.63.022.2996
    Web minus in-person Republican share, same yearGSS 2024−0.4−7.76.9972
    In the top panel the ANES gap rose by 21.4 points in person and 18.0 on the web between 2012 and 2016. In the lower panels the ANES web estimates are above the in-person estimates in every year, although one gap interval includes zero, while the GSS web and in-person Republican shares differ by −0.4 points in 2024. Dots are estimates and lines are 95% confidence intervals.Note: The 2020 ANES study has no separate weights by mode, so it has no row. The 2024 ANES mode groups are the fresh in-person and fresh web samples; the panel and paper respondents are in neither.Note: The GSS rows compare 2022 or 2024 in-person with web respondents; the 2021 survey was mostly web and has no in-person comparison.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 2012, 2016 and 2024, and General Social Survey, 2022 and 2024; weighted (weight_ftf and weight_web, the ANES weights for each mode; weight_use)

    Warmth toward illegal immigrants split by party much more than warmth toward Hispanics

    The ANES asks respondents to rate groups on a feeling thermometerFeeling thermometerA 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way. that runs from cold to warm. The rating of illegal immigrants is in 99 studiesEstimandcount of study years with the rating and enough respondents in both partiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES studies with the illegal immigrants thermometerPeriod1988-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies from 1988, before the question on the number of immigrants begins. Democrats rated the group 39.739.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 37.9 to 41.5n776Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988 and 56.856.8 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 55.4 to 58.2n2,303Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, a change of 17.1 (95% CI 14.8 to 19.3)17.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier weighted mean rating of illegal immigrants (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 14.8 to 19.3n3,079Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. Republicans rated it 32.032.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 30.4 to 33.6n697Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 26.926.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 25.3 to 28.4n2,067Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, a change of −5.2 (95% CI −7.4 to −2.9)−5.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier weighted mean rating of illegal immigrants (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −7.4 to −2.9n2,764Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points; among in-person respondents the change is −3.6 (95% CI −7.2 to 0.0)−3.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier weighted mean rating of illegal immigrants, in-person respondents only (two separate samples)Interval95% CI −7.2 to 0.0n1,084Weightsweight before 2008 (in person by design) and weight_ftf from 2008PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who rated illegal immigrantsPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero, and the Republican series is not steady, at 35.035.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 32.6 to 37.4n435Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2004SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2004 and 33.733.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean feeling thermometer rating of illegal immigrants (illegal aliens in the cumulative file label)Interval95% CI 32.5 to 34.9n2,914Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020. The warmth gap, Democrats minus Republicans, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.3 to 10.1)7.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating of illegal immigrants among Democrats minus the mean among Republicans (warmth gap)Interval95% CI 5.3 to 10.1n1,473Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1988 and 29.9 (95% CI 27.8 to 32.0)29.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating of illegal immigrants among Democrats minus the mean among Republicans (warmth gap)Interval95% CI 27.8 to 32.0n4,370Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, a widening of 22.2 (95% CI 19.0 to 25.4)22.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier warmth gap (Democratic mean rating of illegal immigrants minus Republican mean rating), two separate samplesInterval95% CI 19.0 to 25.4n5,843Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. Warmth runs opposite to a restrictive answer, so this series is signed the other way, and a positive value means that Democrats were warmer.

    Ratings of Hispanics changed less (Figure 5). The warmth gap was 5.4 (95% CI 3.3 to 7.5)5.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating of Hispanics among Democrats minus the mean among Republicans (warmth gap)Interval95% CI 3.3 to 7.5n1,447Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1988 and 7.3 (95% CI 5.4 to 9.2)7.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating of Hispanics among Democrats minus the mean among Republicans (warmth gap)Interval95% CI 5.4 to 9.2n4,362Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, above zero in both years, a widening of 1.9 (95% CI −0.9 to 4.7)1.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier warmth gap (Democratic mean rating of Hispanics minus Republican mean rating), two separate samplesInterval95% CI −0.9 to 4.7n5,809Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and both parties rated Hispanics warmer in 2024 than in 1988, Democrats by 14.2 (95% CI 12.2 to 16.1)14.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier weighted mean rating of Hispanics (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 12.2 to 16.1n3,075Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points and Republicans by 12.2 (95% CI 10.2 to 14.2)12.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandlater minus earlier weighted mean rating of Hispanics (two separate samples)Interval95% CI 10.2 to 14.2n2,734Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who rated the groupPeriod1988 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The item for illegal immigrants is labelled illegal aliens in the cumulative file and illegal immigrants in the 2020 and 2024 studies, so a change of label could have moved ratings between studies.

    Figure 5

    The party gap in warmth toward illegal immigrants widened more than the gap toward Hispanics

    Mean ANES feeling thermometer rating from 0 (cold) to 100 (warm), by party identification; leaners are in the parties and independents lean toward neither; all respondents dashed; 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for The party gap in warmth toward illegal immigrants widened more than the gap toward Hispanics
    Group ratedPartyYearMean ratingLowerUpperRespondents
    HispanicsAll respondents198857.056.058.01,629
    HispanicsAll respondents199261.060.261.92,127
    HispanicsAll respondents199461.159.962.31,674
    HispanicsAll respondents199663.862.764.81,465
    HispanicsAll respondents200063.862.665.11,438
    HispanicsAll respondents200263.061.664.41,255
    HispanicsAll respondents200467.766.469.01,037
    HispanicsAll respondents200865.264.166.42,050
    HispanicsAll respondents201263.562.764.35,449
    HispanicsAll respondents201668.167.268.93,572
    HispanicsAll respondents202071.871.272.57,109
    HispanicsAll respondents202469.968.970.84,684
    HispanicsDemocrats198859.758.261.2763
    HispanicsDemocrats199263.162.064.31,041
    HispanicsDemocrats199463.161.364.9783
    HispanicsDemocrats199665.564.067.0765
    HispanicsDemocrats200065.163.366.9701
    HispanicsDemocrats200263.861.965.8582
    HispanicsDemocrats200468.066.070.0489
    HispanicsDemocrats200867.766.169.21,193
    HispanicsDemocrats201267.165.968.22,859
    HispanicsDemocrats201672.371.173.61,638
    HispanicsDemocrats202075.674.676.53,326
    HispanicsDemocrats202473.972.675.22,312
    HispanicsIndependents198855.852.659.0173
    HispanicsIndependents199259.457.161.7256
    HispanicsIndependents199456.252.559.9171
    HispanicsIndependents200061.357.565.1166
    HispanicsIndependents200861.257.465.0228
    HispanicsIndependents201259.357.161.6723
    HispanicsIndependents201663.861.466.2460
    HispanicsIndependents202068.566.470.6818
    HispanicsIndependents202461.757.765.6303
    HispanicsRepublicans198854.452.955.8684
    HispanicsRepublicans199259.057.760.3820
    HispanicsRepublicans199460.258.561.9710
    HispanicsRepublicans199661.760.063.3570
    HispanicsRepublicans200062.861.064.6560
    HispanicsRepublicans200263.861.865.8570
    HispanicsRepublicans200468.867.070.6436
    HispanicsRepublicans200863.361.465.1596
    HispanicsRepublicans201260.759.462.01,847
    HispanicsRepublicans201664.763.466.01,463
    HispanicsRepublicans202068.767.769.62,944
    HispanicsRepublicans202466.665.267.92,050
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents198835.734.536.91,658
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents199236.135.237.12,165
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents199432.330.933.71,746
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents200440.538.942.11,039
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents200839.337.940.72,048
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents201238.037.138.95,458
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents201641.940.843.03,580
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents202048.247.349.07,092
    Illegal immigrantsAll respondents202442.641.443.84,686
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats198839.737.941.5776
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats199238.336.939.71,066
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats199437.535.439.5816
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats200445.543.247.8491
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats200845.543.747.41,191
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats201246.144.847.42,864
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats201652.450.953.91,641
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats202061.060.062.13,336
    Illegal immigrantsDemocrats202456.855.458.22,303
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents198832.328.436.1176
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents199237.534.640.5260
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents199430.526.234.8182
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents200838.133.842.5229
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents201237.234.539.8725
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents201641.538.644.4461
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents202048.746.251.1820
    Illegal immigrantsIndependents202443.439.147.8297
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans198832.030.433.6697
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans199232.931.434.5830
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans199427.225.229.1736
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans200435.032.637.4435
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans200831.429.133.6596
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans201228.827.430.11,849
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans201629.628.131.11,467
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans202033.732.534.92,914
    Illegal immigrantsRepublicans202426.925.328.42,067
    In the illegal immigrants view the Democratic line rises to 56.8 in 2024 and the Republican line ends at 26.9, a warmth gap of 29.9 points that is 22.2 points wider than in 1988. In the Hispanics view both lines rise and the gap is 7.3 in 2024, 1.9 points wider than in 1988. Bands are 95% confidence intervals and the shaded band marks the change in survey mode between 2016 and 2020.Note: The cumulative file labels the illegal immigrants item illegal aliens; the 2020 and 2024 studies label it illegal immigrants. The Hispanics ratings are available in more studies than the illegal immigrants ratings.Note: The series are the cleaned-file variables therm_illegal_aliens and therm_hispanics, which recode the cumulative file code 97, which stands for 97 to 100 degrees, to 100.Note: An independent cell is drawn only where it has at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1988-2024; weighted (weight, VCF0009z)

    The GSS items show the gap opening after 2004

    The GSS asked 44 itemsEstimandcount of items in the GSS module comparisonWeightsnone (count)PopulationGSS immigration module items usedPeriod1996-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey immigration questions in 1996, 2004, 2014 and 2024: whether the number of immigrants should be reduced, and whether immigrants take jobs away from people born in America, increase crime rates and are good for America's economy. The jobs and crime questions were repeated in 2022. Figure 6 shows the shares by party. In 1996 the gap on every item was within sampling error of zero. In 2004 the intervals for jobs and the economy still include zero, while those for reducing the number (11.6 (95% CI 4.0 to 19.3)11.6 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants (letin1), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 4.0 to 19.3n903Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2004SourceGeneral Social Survey points) and for crime (6.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 12.9)6.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 0.1 to 12.9n976Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2004SourceGeneral Social Survey) lie above it. By 2014 every interval was above zero, and in 2024 the gaps were 48.8 (95% CI 41.5 to 56.1)48.8 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS question on the number of immigrants (letin1), answer reduced a little or a lotInterval95% CI 41.5 to 56.1n1,075Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points on reducing the number, 35.1 (95% CI 29.3 to 40.8)35.1 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS item that immigrants take jobs away (immjobs), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 29.3 to 40.8n1,578Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey on jobs, 43.0 (95% CI 37.2 to 48.9)43.0 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 37.2 to 48.9n1,563Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey on crime and 22.3 (95% CI 16.2 to 28.4)22.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the GSS item that immigrants are good for America's economy (immameco), answer disagree or disagree stronglyInterval95% CI 16.2 to 28.4n1,125Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey on the economy.

    The parties moved differently on different items. On jobs the Democratic share agreeing fell from 49.3%49.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants take jobs away (immjobs), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 44.9% to 53.8%n610Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod1996SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1996 to 11.5%11.5% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants take jobs away (immjobs), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 8.4% to 14.6%n833Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024 while the Republican share was 46.1%46.1% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants take jobs away (immjobs), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 41.0% to 51.1%n460Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod1996SourceGeneral Social Survey and 46.5%46.5% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants take jobs away (immjobs), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 41.7% to 51.4%n745Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey. On crime the Democratic share fell from 37.4%37.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 33.0% to 41.8%n596Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod1996SourceGeneral Social Survey to 11.8%11.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 8.7% to 15.0%n828Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey and the Republican share rose from 32.6%32.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 27.9% to 37.4%n457Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod1996SourceGeneral Social Survey to 54.9%54.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the GSS item that immigrants increase crime rates (immcrime), answer agree or agree stronglyInterval95% CI 50.0% to 59.8%n735Weightsweight_use (wtssnrps from 2004)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey.

    Figure 6

    Democratic and Republican answers were close on four GSS items in 1996 and far apart in 2024

    Share giving the restrictive answer to four GSS immigration items, by party identification; leaners are in the parties and independents lean toward neither; 95% intervals

    Share giving the restrictive answer (%)

    Reduce the number of immigrantsImmigrants take jobs awayImmigrants increase crime ratesImmigrants are not good for the economy
    Show data
    Data for Democratic and Republican answers were close on four GSS items in 1996 and far apart in 2024
    InterviewsItemGroupYearShare (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats199660.455.765.1531
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats200447.441.952.8466
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats201437.232.442.1513
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats202426.221.131.3568
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents199665.156.473.8160
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents200457.148.565.8180
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents201436.028.243.7202
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents202443.536.051.0336
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans199666.962.071.9427
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans200459.053.664.4437
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans201451.945.858.0349
    All interviewsReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans202475.069.780.2507
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats199649.344.953.8610
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats200439.834.744.9514
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats201431.727.336.2569
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats202215.912.319.4963
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats202411.58.414.6833
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents199652.644.261.0185
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents200451.543.259.8199
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents201433.026.140.0240
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents202218.613.323.8548
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents202420.015.224.8548
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans199646.141.051.1460
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans200440.335.245.5474
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans201441.135.446.8385
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans202235.329.441.2701
    All interviewsImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans202446.541.751.4745
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats199637.433.041.8596
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats200421.917.626.2511
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats201416.913.420.5574
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats20227.04.59.5964
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats202411.88.715.0828
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents199634.526.542.5186
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents200434.326.342.2195
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents201423.016.729.4233
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents202216.111.121.0548
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents202421.616.626.5541
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans199632.627.937.4457
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans200428.423.633.2465
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans201423.718.728.7375
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans202237.231.243.2696
    All interviewsImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans202454.950.059.8735
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats199633.128.837.3594
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats200422.017.726.4507
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats201417.113.520.6568
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats20246.43.79.2604
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents199633.825.941.8185
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents200427.920.435.4195
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents201412.67.617.6231
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents202412.88.217.4366
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans199633.528.738.4446
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans200421.016.725.3469
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans201425.820.730.9382
    All interviewsImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans202428.823.434.2521
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats199660.455.765.1531
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats200447.841.853.9373
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsDemocrats201436.030.941.2442
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents199665.156.473.8160
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents200457.348.166.5149
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsIndependents201439.130.347.9165
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans199666.962.071.9427
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans200460.554.666.3351
    In personReduce the number of immigrantsRepublicans201452.546.059.1301
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats199649.344.953.8610
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats200439.433.845.0416
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats201431.326.636.0493
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats202218.112.623.7432
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayDemocrats202415.59.621.4286
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents199652.644.261.0185
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents200451.242.360.0163
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayIndependents201434.126.441.9200
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans199646.141.051.1460
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans200439.433.845.0385
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans201438.632.544.6334
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans202236.827.845.7324
    In personImmigrants take jobs awayRepublicans202448.740.257.3256
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats199637.433.041.8596
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats200422.617.827.4416
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats201416.612.820.3497
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats20226.93.210.5433
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesDemocrats202418.312.024.7281
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents199634.526.542.5186
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents200434.125.642.6160
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesIndependents201423.716.730.7196
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans199632.627.937.4457
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans200428.223.033.4379
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans201423.318.028.6325
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans202240.030.949.1320
    In personImmigrants increase crime ratesRepublicans202453.544.962.1251
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats199633.128.837.3594
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats200421.016.325.7409
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyDemocrats201416.913.020.7492
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents199633.825.941.8185
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents200428.020.036.0160
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyIndependents201413.27.618.9193
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans199633.528.738.4446
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans200422.617.827.4381
    In personImmigrants are not good for the economyRepublicans201426.420.931.8331
    Within each panel the Democratic and Republican lines are close in 1996 and separate afterward, by 48.8 points on reducing the number of immigrants, 35.1 on jobs, 43.0 on crime and 22.3 on the economy in 2024. Bands are 95% confidence intervals. The in-person view keeps interviews in person and every survey before 2004.Note: Restrictive answers: reduce the number (letin1, reduced a little or a lot), agree or agree strongly that immigrants take jobs away and that they increase crime rates, and disagree or disagree strongly that immigrants are good for America's economy.Note: The jobs and crime items were also asked in 2022. In the in-person view a party cell needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100, so some points are missing.Source: General Social Survey, 1994-2024; weighted (weight_use)

    Republicans were more restrictive on every CES item in every year

    The CES asked 99 itemsEstimandcount of immigration policy items in the cumulative policy fileWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES immigration policy itemsPeriod2007-2021SourceCooperative Election Study immigration policy questions between 2007 and 2021, and no question was asked in every year (Figure 7). The sign of the gap is the same in all 5757 item-yearsEstimandcount of item-years with a Republican minus Democratic gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES immigration policy itemsPeriod2007-2021SourceCooperative Election Study item-years: the Republican share of the restrictive answer is higher, with an interval above zero. The independent estimate lies between the party estimates in all of them; the independent share is above the Democratic share with an interval above zero in 5656 item-yearsEstimandcount of item-years in which the independent share exceeds the Democratic share with an interval above zeroWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES immigration policy itemsPeriod2007-2021SourceCooperative Election Study item-years and the Republican share is above the independent share with an interval above zero in 5757 item-yearsEstimandcount of item-years in which the Republican share exceeds the independent share with an interval above zeroWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES immigration policy itemsPeriod2007-2021SourceCooperative Election Study.

    The CES changed format in 2018. Through 2017 the items were part of a check-all-that-apply list, in which a respondent who skips an item cannot be told from one who opposes it, and from 2018 the guide to the cumulative policy file words them as support or oppose for each item [5]. The figure breaks between 2017 and 2019, and this section compares levels and gaps only within a format. The wording of several items also changes by year, as the wording table shows. Within the check-all format the gap on more border patrols rose from 28.9 (95% CI 26.1 to 31.8)28.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 26.1 to 31.8n8,145Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2007SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2007 to 46.2 (95% CI 44.1 to 48.3)46.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 44.1 to 48.3n14,360Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2017SourceCooperative Election Study in 2017, and the gap on legal status for long-term residents (counting opposition) rose from 27.2 (95% CI 24.4 to 29.9)27.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on legal status for long-term residents, opposeInterval95% CI 24.4 to 29.9n8,145Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2007SourceCooperative Election Study to 44.0 (95% CI 41.9 to 46.2)44.0 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on legal status for long-term residents, opposeInterval95% CI 41.9 to 46.2n14,360Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2017SourceCooperative Election Study. Under the later format the border patrol gap was 45.5 (95% CI 43.8 to 47.1)45.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 43.8 to 47.1n14,672Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2019SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2019 and 45.2 (95% CI 43.8 to 46.6)45.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 43.8 to 46.6n20,584Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2021SourceCooperative Election Study in 2021, and the legal status gap was 43.4 (95% CI 41.6 to 45.2)43.4 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on legal status for long-term residents, opposeInterval95% CI 41.6 to 45.2n14,697Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2019SourceCooperative Election Study and 48.0 (95% CI 46.5 to 49.6)48.0 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on legal status for long-term residents, opposeInterval95% CI 46.5 to 49.6n20,584Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2021SourceCooperative Election Study.

    The Democratic share moved more than the Republican share on the border patrol item in the check-all years. Democrats supporting more border patrols fell from 39.8%39.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 37.8% to 41.8%n4,372Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2007SourceCooperative Election Study in 2007 to 26.1%26.1% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the CES item on more border patrols, supportInterval95% CI 24.7% to 27.5%n8,585Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2017SourceCooperative Election Study in 2017, a change of −13.7 (95% CI −16.1 to −11.3)−13.7 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the CES item on more border patrols, support (check-all-that-apply format; two separate samples)Interval95% CI −16.1 to −11.3n12,957Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the CES itemPeriod2007 to 2017SourceCooperative Election Study points, while the Republican share changed by 3.5 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.1)3.5 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier weighted share; the CES item on more border patrols, support (check-all-that-apply format; two separate samples)Interval95% CI 0.9 to 6.1n9,548Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the CES itemPeriod2007 to 2017SourceCooperative Election Study points. In every year it was asked the wall question has the largest gap of the items asked that year, at 70.7 (95% CI 69.8 to 71.6)70.7 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on the border wall, supportInterval95% CI 69.8 to 71.6n49,103Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2018SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2018 and 69.5 (95% CI 68.6 to 70.4)69.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share; the CES item on the border wall, supportInterval95% CI 68.6 to 70.4n49,736Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study in 2020, which share a wording and a format. The 2017 and 2021 questions are worded differently, as the wording table shows, and are not compared with those years; in 2021 15.4%15.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the CES item on the border wall, supportInterval95% CI 14.5% to 16.2%n12,445Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2021SourceCooperative Election Study of Democrats and 85.6%85.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share; the CES item on the border wall, supportInterval95% CI 84.7% to 86.6%n8,139Weightsweight (single-wave weight)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2021SourceCooperative Election Study of Republicans were in favor.

    Figure 7

    Republicans were more restrictive than Democrats on every CES item in every year, with independents between them

    Share giving the restrictive answer to nine CES immigration policy items, by party identification including leaners, 2007 to 2021; 95% intervals from an opt-in panel

    Share giving the restrictive answer (%)

    • Democrats
    • Independents
    • Republicans
    Support more border patrolsOppose legal status for long-term residentsSupport fines for employersSupport police questioningSupport identifying and deportingSupport barring servicesSupport reducing legal immigrationSupport police reportingSupport the border wall
    Show data
    Data for Republicans were more restrictive than Democrats on every CES item in every year, with independents between them
    ItemGroupYearShare (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats200739.837.841.84,372
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201046.345.347.324,407
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201142.140.643.69,349
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201241.040.041.925,295
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201338.637.140.27,527
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201443.742.744.625,737
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201539.037.340.66,681
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201635.534.736.331,139
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201726.124.727.58,585
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats2018n/an/an/an/a
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats201947.345.848.88,237
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats202037.536.738.329,329
    Support more border patrolsDemocrats202147.646.448.812,445
    Support more border patrolsIndependents200757.753.062.4837
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201058.056.059.95,978
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201151.748.754.82,782
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201255.754.057.56,205
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201355.853.358.42,946
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201458.456.760.18,683
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201551.048.053.92,202
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201651.850.553.210,493
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201745.042.447.63,193
    Support more border patrolsIndependents2018n/an/an/an/a
    Support more border patrolsIndependents201966.363.669.02,640
    Support more border patrolsIndependents202063.261.664.88,853
    Support more border patrolsIndependents202166.764.868.64,352
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans200768.866.770.83,773
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201078.477.579.223,454
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201171.770.273.17,346
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201276.075.176.820,552
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201375.573.977.15,307
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201478.077.278.919,039
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201576.474.978.04,878
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201674.773.975.520,847
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201772.370.773.95,775
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans2018n/an/an/an/a
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans201992.892.093.66,435
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans202090.590.091.120,403
    Support more border patrolsRepublicans202192.892.193.58,139
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats200752.150.154.24,372
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201042.141.143.124,407
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201139.638.141.09,349
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201235.434.536.325,295
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201336.635.138.27,527
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201433.132.334.025,737
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201531.930.333.56,681
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201627.927.228.631,139
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201724.623.325.98,585
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats2018n/an/an/an/a
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats201915.314.316.48,260
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats202011.511.012.129,339
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsDemocrats202112.611.813.412,445
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents200771.266.875.5837
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201063.661.865.55,978
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201161.258.364.12,782
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201257.755.959.46,205
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201359.857.362.42,946
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201460.458.862.18,683
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201558.155.261.12,202
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201651.850.453.210,493
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201753.150.555.83,193
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents2018n/an/an/an/a
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents201938.836.141.52,647
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents202032.030.533.68,853
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsIndependents202137.735.739.64,352
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans200779.377.581.03,773
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201079.478.680.223,454
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201172.571.174.07,346
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201274.173.275.020,552
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201372.871.174.45,307
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201472.671.773.619,039
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201570.969.272.64,878
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201665.364.466.120,847
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201768.666.970.35,775
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans2018n/an/an/an/a
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans201958.857.360.26,437
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans202054.253.355.120,385
    Oppose legal status for long-term residentsRepublicans202160.759.362.08,139
    Support fines for employersDemocrats200755.453.457.54,372
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201063.258.468.0921
    Support fines for employersDemocrats2011n/an/an/an/a
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201251.650.652.525,295
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201351.149.552.77,527
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201452.351.453.325,737
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201549.347.651.06,681
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201651.149.352.96,113
    Support fines for employersDemocrats201739.437.940.98,585
    Support fines for employersIndependents200770.165.874.5837
    Support fines for employersIndependents201063.654.772.4263
    Support fines for employersIndependents2011n/an/an/an/a
    Support fines for employersIndependents201264.462.766.16,205
    Support fines for employersIndependents201363.160.665.62,946
    Support fines for employersIndependents201462.060.463.78,683
    Support fines for employersIndependents201556.053.158.92,202
    Support fines for employersIndependents201670.067.272.82,195
    Support fines for employersIndependents201753.751.156.33,193
    Support fines for employersRepublicans200775.773.977.63,773
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201082.178.386.01,018
    Support fines for employersRepublicans2011n/an/an/an/a
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201276.675.777.520,552
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201376.775.178.35,307
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201474.373.475.219,039
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201574.572.976.14,878
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201680.378.981.84,762
    Support fines for employersRepublicans201772.771.174.35,775
    Support police questioningDemocrats201024.123.325.024,407
    Support police questioningDemocrats201124.823.526.29,349
    Support police questioningDemocrats201219.718.920.425,295
    Support police questioningDemocrats201320.018.721.47,527
    Support police questioningDemocrats201420.820.021.625,737
    Support police questioningDemocrats201519.918.621.36,681
    Support police questioningDemocrats2016n/an/an/an/a
    Support police questioningDemocrats201711.710.712.78,585
    Support police questioningIndependents201046.444.448.35,978
    Support police questioningIndependents201138.435.441.32,782
    Support police questioningIndependents201240.538.842.36,205
    Support police questioningIndependents201337.134.539.62,946
    Support police questioningIndependents201437.535.939.28,683
    Support police questioningIndependents201534.631.837.42,202
    Support police questioningIndependents2016n/an/an/an/a
    Support police questioningIndependents201731.228.733.63,193
    Support police questioningRepublicans201069.969.070.823,454
    Support police questioningRepublicans201163.562.065.17,346
    Support police questioningRepublicans201263.162.164.120,552
    Support police questioningRepublicans201359.257.361.05,307
    Support police questioningRepublicans201456.555.457.519,039
    Support police questioningRepublicans201556.154.357.94,878
    Support police questioningRepublicans2016n/an/an/an/a
    Support police questioningRepublicans201754.853.056.65,775
    Support identifying and deportingDemocrats201437.336.438.225,737
    Support identifying and deportingDemocrats201530.829.332.46,681
    Support identifying and deportingDemocrats201623.522.924.231,139
    Support identifying and deportingDemocrats201718.417.219.68,585
    Support identifying and deportingIndependents201460.458.762.18,683
    Support identifying and deportingIndependents201555.953.058.92,202
    Support identifying and deportingIndependents201647.846.449.210,493
    Support identifying and deportingIndependents201742.339.744.93,193
    Support identifying and deportingRepublicans201478.077.278.919,039
    Support identifying and deportingRepublicans201574.272.675.84,878
    Support identifying and deportingRepublicans201666.665.767.420,847
    Support identifying and deportingRepublicans201767.065.268.75,775
    Support barring servicesDemocrats201218.017.218.725,295
    Support barring servicesDemocrats201318.417.219.77,527
    Support barring servicesIndependents201236.534.838.26,205
    Support barring servicesIndependents201335.633.138.12,946
    Support barring servicesRepublicans201247.246.248.220,552
    Support barring servicesRepublicans201345.643.747.45,307
    Support reducing legal immigrationDemocrats201821.420.722.226,987
    Support reducing legal immigrationDemocrats201920.018.821.18,226
    Support reducing legal immigrationDemocrats202020.219.620.929,328
    Support reducing legal immigrationIndependents201842.240.443.98,338
    Support reducing legal immigrationIndependents201941.738.944.42,638
    Support reducing legal immigrationIndependents202041.439.743.08,851
    Support reducing legal immigrationRepublicans201872.071.272.921,228
    Support reducing legal immigrationRepublicans201961.760.263.16,425
    Support reducing legal immigrationRepublicans202066.365.467.220,380
    Support police reportingDemocrats201718.217.019.48,585
    Support police reportingDemocrats201820.319.621.127,589
    Support police reportingDemocrats201917.916.719.08,248
    Support police reportingDemocrats202023.022.323.829,335
    Support police reportingDemocrats202126.825.827.912,445
    Support police reportingIndependents201743.741.146.33,193
    Support police reportingIndependents201848.146.449.98,518
    Support police reportingIndependents201945.642.848.42,647
    Support police reportingIndependents202048.346.650.08,855
    Support police reportingIndependents202151.549.553.54,352
    Support police reportingRepublicans201770.769.072.35,775
    Support police reportingRepublicans201882.681.983.321,702
    Support police reportingRepublicans201981.980.783.16,445
    Support police reportingRepublicans202075.574.776.320,397
    Support police reportingRepublicans202171.770.572.98,139
    Support the border wallDemocrats20175.95.26.78,585
    Support the border wallDemocrats201811.911.312.427,478
    Support the border wallDemocrats2019n/an/an/an/a
    Support the border wallDemocrats202013.112.613.729,337
    Support the border wallDemocrats202115.414.516.212,445
    Support the border wallIndependents201731.028.633.43,193
    Support the border wallIndependents201839.237.540.98,468
    Support the border wallIndependents2019n/an/an/an/a
    Support the border wallIndependents202040.839.142.48,848
    Support the border wallIndependents202144.942.946.94,352
    Support the border wallRepublicans201762.961.264.75,775
    Support the border wallRepublicans201882.681.983.321,625
    Support the border wallRepublicans2019n/an/an/an/a
    Support the border wallRepublicans202082.681.983.320,399
    Support the border wallRepublicans202185.684.786.68,139
    In each panel the Republican line lies above the Democratic line in every year and the independent line lies between them by the point estimate, in all 57 item-years. The break between 2017 and 2019 is the change from check-all-that-apply items to support or oppose items, and levels should not be compared across it. Bands are 95% confidence intervals that rest on a model.Note: Panel titles name the restrictive answer. Through 2017 the items were check-all-that-apply, and an unchecked item cannot be told from an explicit oppose; from 2018 respondents supported or opposed each item. Several items change wording by year, as the wording table shows.Note: The 2018 wave has only the reduce legal immigration, police reporting and wall items. A line breaks where an item was not asked.Note: Each party cell needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100. The CES is an opt-in panel, so the intervals rest on a model.Source: Cooperative Election Study cumulative policy preferences, 2007-2021; weighted (single-wave weight), opt-in panel

    Nationscape shows large gaps that narrowed in 2020

    Nationscape interviewed adults every week from July 2019 [6] and asked four of the immigration policy questions in 7777 weeksEstimandcount of weeks with at least 500 respondents and enough respondents in each party on the wall itemWeightsnone (count)PopulationNationscape weekly wavesPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape weeks through December 2020. It asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with each policy. Pooled over those weeks, the share agreeing with building a wall on the southern border was 15.8%15.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI 15.5% to 16.1%n147,696WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape among Democrats, 38.3%38.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI 37.8% to 38.8%n106,663WeightsweightPopulationindependents who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape among independents and 81.2%81.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI 80.8% to 81.5%n128,139WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape among Republicans, a gap of 65.4 (95% CI 64.9 to 65.8)65.4 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI 64.9 to 65.8n275,835WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape points. The gap on deporting all undocumented immigrants was 47.3 (95% CI 46.8 to 47.9)47.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share who agree with deporting all undocumented immigrantsInterval95% CI 46.8 to 47.9n260,334WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape points, on disagreeing with a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants 37.1 (95% CI 36.6 to 37.7)37.1 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share who disagree with a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrantsInterval95% CI 36.6 to 37.7n262,675WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape and on disagreeing with a path for those brought here as children 22.0 (95% CI 21.5 to 22.5)22.0 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share who disagree with a path to citizenship for those brought here as childrenInterval95% CI 21.5 to 22.5n274,792WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape. The last item has the smallest gap, with 9.4%9.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who disagree with a path to citizenship for those brought here as childrenInterval95% CI 9.1% to 9.6%n152,999WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape of Democrats and 31.4%31.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who disagree with a path to citizenship for those brought here as childrenInterval95% CI 30.9% to 31.8%n121,793WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape of Republicans disagreeing.

    The weekly wall gap stayed between 57.457.4 percentage pointsEstimandlowest across weeks of the weekly Republican minus Democratic gap in agreeing with a wall on the southern borderWeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the wall itemPeriodweekly, July 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape and 74.374.3 percentage pointsEstimandhighest across weeks of the weekly Republican minus Democratic gap in agreeing with a wall on the southern borderWeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the wall itemPeriodweekly, July 2019 to December 2020SourceNationscape points in every week (Figure 8). It changed by −6.5 (95% CI −7.6 to −5.3)−6.5 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap, weeks pooled within each half year; share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI −7.6 to −5.3n181,095WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2019 compared with July to December 2020SourceNationscape points between late 2019 and late 2020, and the gap on deportation by −6.1 (95% CI −7.5 to −4.7)−6.1 percentage pointsEstimandlater minus earlier Republican minus Democratic gap, weeks pooled within each half year; share who agree with deporting all undocumented immigrantsInterval95% CI −7.5 to −4.7n170,810WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats and Republicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2019 compared with July to December 2020SourceNationscape. Over the same periods the Democratic share agreeing with the wall item rose from 14.2%14.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US border, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 13.6% to 14.7%n47,673WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2019SourceNationscape to 17.3%17.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US border, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 16.7% to 17.8%n49,677WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2020SourceNationscape and the Republican share fell from 82.8%82.8% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US border, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 82.2% to 83.5%n40,328WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2019SourceNationscape to 79.4%79.4% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US border, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 78.8% to 80.0%n43,417WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2020SourceNationscape. Four weeks of January and February 2021 are drawn as open points and left out of every pooled estimate. In the week of 18 January 202118 January 2021 dateEstimandMonday that starts the field week in which the party shares move toward an even split on three of the four itemsWeightsnone (count)PopulationNationscape weekly wavesPeriod2021SourceNationscape the Democratic share agreeing with the wall item was 39.3%39.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US borderInterval95% CI 35.6% to 43.1%n1,522WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the wall itemPeriodweek of 18 January 2021SourceNationscape against 17.3%17.3% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who agree with building a wall on the southern US border, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 16.7% to 17.8%n49,677WeightsweightPopulationDemocrats (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2020SourceNationscape in late 2020, and the Republican share disagreeing with a path to citizenship for all was 44.2%44.2% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who disagree with a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrantsInterval95% CI 40.0% to 48.5%n1,166WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodweek of 18 January 2021SourceNationscape against 52.5%52.5% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share who disagree with a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, weeks pooledInterval95% CI 51.8% to 53.3%n40,655WeightsweightPopulationRepublicans (no leaners) who answered the itemPeriodJuly to December 2020SourceNationscape. The file does not say why. Nationscape also asks the three-category party question and, for most weeks, no question about leaners, so its Democrats and Republicans exclude leaners, its independents include them, and its gaps are not comparable with the CES gaps.

    Figure 8

    Nationscape respondents divided by party on every immigration item in every week of 2019 and 2020

    Weekly share giving the restrictive answer to four Nationscape immigration items, by party identification without leaners, July 2019 to early 2021; 95% intervals from an opt-in panel

    Share giving the restrictive answer (%)

    Show data
    Data for Nationscape respondents divided by party on every immigration item in every week of 2019 and 2020
    ItemGroupWeek ofLeft out of pooled estimatesShare (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-07-15no12.99.915.91,516
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-07-22no14.611.717.51,959
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-07-29no14.912.117.72,053
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-08-05no14.011.116.91,739
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-08-12no10.47.813.01,744
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-08-19no13.210.815.72,402
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-08-26no13.911.116.71,764
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-09-02no13.911.216.61,882
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-09-09no14.111.117.01,775
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-09-16no14.011.116.91,913
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-09-23no16.012.919.11,784
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-09-30no14.612.216.92,857
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-10-07no14.811.518.01,518
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-10-14no17.113.420.91,219
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-10-21no16.613.619.62,037
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-10-28no14.511.717.32,134
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-11-04no11.69.014.11,710
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-11-11no12.910.515.22,245
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-11-18no19.214.923.61,010
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-11-25no15.112.417.72,256
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-12-02no11.08.213.81,363
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-12-09no15.613.218.12,349
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-12-16no14.011.516.51,996
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-12-23no15.112.417.81,670
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2019-12-30no12.710.714.72,778
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-01-06no18.915.522.31,376
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-01-13no13.410.815.91,903
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-01-20no12.710.315.12,061
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-01-27no15.112.018.11,509
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-02-03no15.612.718.51,834
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-02-10no16.713.719.71,668
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-02-17no15.613.018.22,062
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-02-24no13.410.716.11,584
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-03-02no18.615.721.51,971
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-03-09no13.711.116.41,781
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-03-16no16.814.219.51,979
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-03-23no18.215.421.01,814
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-03-30no19.617.521.73,180
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-04-06no15.713.917.43,967
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-04-13no18.115.221.01,598
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-04-20no15.112.417.81,592
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-04-27no13.510.816.11,533
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-05-04no16.814.319.32,216
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-05-11no18.015.021.01,482
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-05-18no16.113.818.32,421
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-05-25no20.717.623.81,522
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-06-01no13.611.216.11,759
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-06-08no14.111.716.61,903
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-06-15no13.811.516.21,931
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-06-22no14.512.116.91,991
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-06-29no15.112.417.71,709
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-07-06no15.212.318.21,429
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-07-13no18.216.220.23,579
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-07-20no14.912.916.83,104
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-07-27no16.013.718.32,312
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-08-03no13.310.716.01,504
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-08-10no13.410.816.01,602
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-08-17no13.511.016.01,997
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-08-24no14.211.317.11,595
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-08-31no18.315.221.41,628
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-09-07no16.914.019.91,696
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-09-14no19.216.422.12,088
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-09-21no16.613.419.81,571
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-09-28no17.514.120.91,424
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-10-05no16.613.719.51,891
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-10-12no16.813.919.81,804
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-10-19no18.715.422.01,611
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-10-26no18.715.921.62,019
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-11-02no15.012.317.71,758
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-11-09no21.018.124.01,886
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-11-16no19.216.022.31,698
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-11-23no19.016.321.72,147
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-11-30no20.818.123.62,303
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-12-07no17.914.621.21,398
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-12-14no19.116.521.62,365
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-12-21no18.015.420.52,102
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2020-12-28no16.813.420.21,166
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2021-01-11yes26.722.730.61,405
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2021-01-18yes39.335.643.11,522
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2021-01-25yes19.716.123.21,150
    Build a wall (agree)Democrats2021-02-01yes21.415.926.9530
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-07-15no39.534.444.51,148
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-07-22no39.134.543.71,476
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-07-29no34.830.639.01,527
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-08-05no39.034.643.51,372
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-08-12no37.032.341.61,342
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-08-19no40.036.243.81,876
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-08-26no42.638.047.11,277
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-09-02no42.338.046.61,404
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-09-09no39.635.044.11,273
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-09-16no39.635.044.21,445
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-09-23no40.536.045.01,418
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-09-30no39.235.642.92,104
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-10-07no38.833.943.71,089
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-10-14no41.135.846.3916
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-10-21no39.134.943.41,628
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-10-28no35.331.239.41,772
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-11-04no40.636.345.01,354
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-11-11no38.234.342.11,716
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-11-18no37.131.542.8861
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-11-25no32.228.436.11,879
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-12-02no43.138.247.91,152
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-12-09no39.035.342.71,863
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-12-16no36.832.940.81,589
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-12-23no35.931.740.11,250
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2019-12-30no38.134.941.32,298
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-01-06no36.932.241.61,011
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-01-13no37.033.041.11,490
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-01-20no39.935.944.01,450
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-01-27no36.732.041.31,101
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-02-03no38.033.742.21,506
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-02-10no39.334.743.91,235
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-02-17no36.732.740.71,470
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-02-24no42.537.847.21,071
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-03-02no35.130.939.21,416
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-03-09no39.234.943.51,349
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-03-16no39.535.343.71,338
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-03-23no41.837.446.11,272
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-03-30no41.538.344.72,046
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-04-06no37.534.740.22,717
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-04-13no40.636.344.91,168
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-04-20no37.733.442.01,123
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-04-27no39.435.243.71,177
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-05-04no39.435.443.41,363
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-05-11no36.832.241.4981
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-05-18no36.032.539.51,663
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-05-25no39.234.743.81,028
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-06-01no37.133.141.11,297
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-06-08no37.533.741.31,462
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-06-15no35.831.939.81,329
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-06-22no38.334.542.01,512
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-06-29no35.531.539.51,321
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-07-06no38.233.542.91,062
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-07-13no37.734.640.92,372
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-07-20no38.335.241.52,194
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-07-27no39.135.442.81,569
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-08-03no38.333.842.9990
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-08-10no36.031.640.41,107
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-08-17no39.835.843.81,488
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-08-24no37.632.842.41,037
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-08-31no38.333.842.81,160
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-09-07no35.931.540.31,185
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-09-14no38.334.042.51,418
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-09-21no36.331.441.21,089
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-09-28no38.533.643.41,053
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-10-05no37.733.442.11,332
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-10-12no38.834.243.31,295
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-10-19no34.729.839.51,109
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-10-26no40.236.044.41,451
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-11-02no38.233.942.51,254
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-11-09no37.733.641.81,314
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-11-16no33.628.738.51,031
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-11-23no39.935.744.11,400
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-11-30no37.733.741.81,529
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-12-07no39.534.045.0818
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-12-14no38.634.542.61,432
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-12-21no42.038.045.91,375
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2020-12-28no33.928.539.2674
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2021-01-11yes45.239.650.9837
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2021-01-18yes45.640.950.4994
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2021-01-25yes40.134.945.3797
    Build a wall (agree)Independents2021-02-01yes36.329.143.5381
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-07-15no85.582.288.81,297
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-07-22no85.182.088.21,581
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-07-29no83.280.086.31,593
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-08-05no84.181.087.21,460
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-08-12no84.781.487.91,386
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-08-19no84.882.287.51,900
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-08-26no83.980.787.01,406
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-09-02no82.779.685.91,512
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-09-09no81.578.184.91,466
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-09-16no86.082.889.11,528
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-09-23no83.680.386.81,546
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-09-30no80.877.983.72,290
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-10-07no82.578.886.11,225
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-10-14no82.979.186.61,110
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-10-21no82.479.185.61,696
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-10-28no80.477.283.71,801
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-11-04no81.378.184.61,545
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-11-11no83.881.186.51,942
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-11-18no84.480.688.11,025
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-11-25no80.377.383.32,044
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-12-02no80.677.084.21,330
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-12-09no86.283.688.72,038
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-12-16no81.778.884.71,755
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-12-23no78.675.281.91,370
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2019-12-30no81.779.484.02,482
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-01-06no85.081.988.11,243
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-01-13no79.676.482.81,612
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-01-20no85.082.487.71,731
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-01-27no81.778.385.11,248
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-02-03no81.378.184.51,669
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-02-10no79.676.382.91,638
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-02-17no84.281.586.91,741
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-02-24no82.979.985.91,468
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-03-02no82.279.085.41,561
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-03-09no83.280.286.11,599
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-03-16no82.479.485.41,609
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-03-23no80.577.683.31,702
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-03-30no83.781.685.72,759
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-04-06no81.379.483.33,446
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-04-13no82.879.985.71,462
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-04-20no80.177.083.31,360
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-04-27no80.477.483.41,477
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-05-04no80.577.883.11,879
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-05-11no79.776.582.91,364
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-05-18no77.975.380.52,189
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-05-25no83.280.486.01,386
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-06-01no78.475.381.41,521
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-06-08no79.776.982.51,776
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-06-15no80.878.183.61,634
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-06-22no80.577.883.31,734
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-06-29no79.376.282.31,586
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-07-06no82.078.785.31,280
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-07-13no77.675.380.02,934
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-07-20no79.176.981.42,977
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-07-27no78.675.981.22,090
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-08-03no78.875.682.11,311
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-08-10no78.074.881.21,436
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-08-17no82.079.384.71,938
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-08-24no77.774.181.41,334
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-08-31no78.174.981.31,647
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-09-07no77.674.281.01,443
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-09-14no79.376.382.31,802
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-09-21no79.876.383.31,417
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-09-28no76.472.780.11,418
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-10-05no81.278.184.31,764
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-10-12no76.673.280.11,629
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-10-19no78.975.382.51,447
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-10-26no80.677.783.52,059
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-11-02no79.476.282.61,578
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-11-09no81.278.284.31,563
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-11-16no82.078.785.41,299
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-11-23no81.678.784.51,800
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-11-30no78.375.281.31,888
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-12-07no78.073.882.2973
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-12-14no81.678.884.31,845
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-12-21no81.578.884.21,735
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2020-12-28no79.475.383.6810
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2021-01-11yes78.774.682.81,075
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2021-01-18yes68.064.071.91,189
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2021-01-25yes79.075.282.71,017
    Build a wall (agree)Republicans2021-02-01yes78.172.084.1418
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-07-15no23.019.226.91,456
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-07-22no19.616.322.91,922
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-07-29no23.520.126.91,948
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-08-05no18.415.121.81,653
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-08-12no22.318.725.91,661
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-08-19no18.215.321.02,300
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-08-26no21.318.024.71,715
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-09-02no18.415.321.51,783
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-09-09no18.515.122.01,675
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-09-16no20.517.123.91,861
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-09-23no21.417.824.91,714
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-09-30no22.419.525.22,765
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-10-07no21.417.625.21,464
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-10-14no25.521.129.91,189
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-10-21no23.520.027.11,917
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-10-28no22.519.125.92,044
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-11-04no20.417.123.71,679
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-11-11no19.616.722.52,153
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-11-18no27.122.232.0972
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-11-25no23.420.126.62,164
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-12-02no19.816.223.51,309
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-12-09no22.619.725.62,247
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-12-16no21.518.424.61,901
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-12-23no25.322.028.71,624
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2019-12-30no21.218.723.82,628
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-01-06no25.121.328.91,336
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-01-13no17.814.920.81,845
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-01-20no20.717.723.71,935
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-01-27no23.720.027.41,453
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-02-03no22.619.226.01,807
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-02-10no25.121.628.71,620
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-02-17no21.318.324.31,989
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-02-24no21.418.024.81,464
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-03-02no24.721.528.01,882
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-03-09no17.314.320.31,691
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-03-16no25.021.828.21,898
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-03-23no24.421.227.71,720
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-03-30no27.324.929.73,079
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-04-06no25.723.627.93,769
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-04-13no25.722.329.01,543
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-04-20no23.720.527.01,549
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-04-27no20.817.624.01,465
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-05-04no21.418.624.22,111
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-05-11no24.621.128.11,426
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-05-18no26.824.129.62,325
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-05-25no27.524.030.91,476
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-06-01no20.617.623.61,664
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-06-08no22.319.325.31,838
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-06-15no18.315.621.01,837
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-06-22no21.618.724.51,946
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-06-29no20.817.723.91,645
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-07-06no20.317.023.71,382
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-07-13no23.821.526.13,482
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-07-20no21.919.524.22,948
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-07-27no19.617.122.22,210
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-08-03no19.916.723.01,485
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-08-10no21.618.324.81,552
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-08-17no19.916.922.91,920
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-08-24no20.216.823.51,539
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-08-31no22.419.025.81,559
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-09-07no22.118.825.51,616
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-09-14no26.022.729.22,038
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-09-21no24.821.028.71,500
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-09-28no21.517.825.21,374
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-10-05no26.823.230.31,810
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-10-12no24.020.727.41,757
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-10-19no23.219.526.91,564
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-10-26no25.522.328.72,007
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-11-02no20.817.724.01,665
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-11-09no25.021.828.31,810
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-11-16no26.623.030.21,607
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-11-23no25.322.228.32,086
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-11-30no24.821.727.82,167
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-12-07no27.823.931.71,340
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-12-14no26.523.529.42,256
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-12-21no25.322.328.21,982
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2020-12-28no24.520.528.51,111
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2021-01-11yes29.725.533.81,343
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2021-01-18yes47.844.051.61,561
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2021-01-25yes25.721.829.71,104
    Deport all (agree)Democrats2021-02-01yes24.718.730.6496
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-07-15no46.641.351.91,111
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-07-22no42.337.547.11,395
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-07-29no36.331.940.71,401
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-08-05no38.934.343.51,274
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-08-12no37.732.942.41,280
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-08-19no38.134.341.91,821
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-08-26no39.835.144.51,200
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-09-02no44.439.848.91,299
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-09-09no35.631.040.21,218
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-09-16no40.535.745.21,343
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-09-23no39.634.944.21,337
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-09-30no38.634.942.41,995
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-10-07no45.139.950.31,025
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-10-14no40.535.045.9831
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-10-21no40.235.744.71,521
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-10-28no37.633.441.91,677
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-11-04no42.537.947.11,247
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-11-11no37.032.941.01,617
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-11-18no37.731.943.5807
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-11-25no35.631.539.71,761
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-12-02no43.138.148.11,105
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-12-09no43.239.347.11,757
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-12-16no36.932.840.91,537
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-12-23no35.531.239.81,184
    Deport all (agree)Independents2019-12-30no39.736.443.02,126
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-01-06no38.133.343.0963
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-01-13no38.234.042.51,352
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-01-20no39.835.644.01,372
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-01-27no38.633.843.51,037
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-02-03no40.436.044.81,432
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-02-10no41.737.046.51,198
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-02-17no38.133.942.21,389
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-02-24no44.339.449.11,023
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-03-02no41.236.745.71,317
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-03-09no40.936.545.41,264
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-03-16no40.536.144.81,276
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-03-23no44.840.349.31,186
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-03-30no43.840.547.11,916
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-04-06no42.339.445.22,560
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-04-13no46.542.051.01,092
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-04-20no38.333.942.81,063
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-04-27no42.738.347.11,126
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-05-04no38.834.743.01,252
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-05-11no40.936.145.6964
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-05-18no39.936.243.61,557
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-05-25no42.938.147.7954
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-06-01no38.934.843.11,205
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-06-08no39.135.243.11,378
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-06-15no38.334.242.51,221
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-06-22no38.234.342.01,429
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-06-29no34.029.938.01,277
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-07-06no39.034.143.9992
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-07-13no39.035.742.32,218
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-07-20no40.036.843.32,103
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-07-27no37.833.941.61,478
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-08-03no35.931.440.5960
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-08-10no36.832.241.31,013
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-08-17no37.933.842.01,407
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-08-24no35.731.040.41,002
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-08-31no36.331.741.01,092
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-09-07no36.131.640.61,139
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-09-14no36.832.541.11,364
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-09-21no39.334.144.51,012
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-09-28no34.429.539.4996
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-10-05no37.733.242.31,223
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-10-12no34.229.638.81,200
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-10-19no34.729.839.71,042
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-10-26no39.034.643.41,361
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-11-02no37.232.741.71,137
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-11-09no35.931.640.11,223
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-11-16no26.722.231.21,012
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-11-23no39.635.343.91,329
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-11-30no38.234.042.41,421
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-12-07no36.130.541.7776
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-12-14no37.333.141.51,304
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-12-21no40.936.845.01,277
    Deport all (agree)Independents2020-12-28no35.029.340.6617
    Deport all (agree)Independents2021-01-11yes43.437.649.2790
    Deport all (agree)Independents2021-01-18yes56.551.861.2989
    Deport all (agree)Independents2021-01-25yes37.431.942.9711
    Deport all (agree)Independents2021-02-01yes39.231.447.0341
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-07-15no76.872.680.91,189
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-07-22no75.271.379.21,466
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-07-29no74.770.978.51,493
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-08-05no71.767.775.71,345
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-08-12no69.965.674.31,275
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-08-19no72.569.076.01,768
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-08-26no72.468.476.31,308
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-09-02no72.768.976.61,389
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-09-09no70.566.374.71,334
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-09-16no75.571.479.51,402
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-09-23no70.266.074.41,447
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-09-30no68.665.072.12,088
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-10-07no74.870.479.21,124
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-10-14no74.569.979.01,029
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-10-21no72.068.076.01,569
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-10-28no71.067.174.91,658
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-11-04no67.763.771.71,449
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-11-11no70.767.274.21,803
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-11-18no70.365.475.2967
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-11-25no68.865.272.41,924
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-12-02no69.364.873.71,203
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-12-09no72.068.575.41,897
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-12-16no74.170.677.61,639
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-12-23no68.864.972.71,278
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2019-12-30no71.168.374.02,275
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-01-06no70.766.674.91,151
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-01-13no68.364.572.21,488
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-01-20no73.369.976.71,606
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-01-27no70.065.874.11,178
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-02-03no71.567.775.31,550
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-02-10no72.168.275.91,517
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-02-17no72.469.075.91,619
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-02-24no73.069.376.71,349
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-03-02no72.568.776.41,461
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-03-09no73.269.676.91,476
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-03-16no71.267.574.81,504
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-03-23no72.268.875.51,604
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-03-30no73.170.675.72,577
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-04-06no74.271.976.53,170
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-04-13no75.772.479.11,347
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-04-20no70.667.074.21,297
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-04-27no72.468.975.91,367
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-05-04no71.968.775.11,735
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-05-11no66.262.370.11,252
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-05-18no69.166.172.12,046
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-05-25no69.365.772.91,291
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-06-01no66.362.770.01,420
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-06-08no70.967.774.11,635
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-06-15no68.264.871.51,545
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-06-22no67.964.571.21,568
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-06-29no67.664.071.21,458
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-07-06no67.062.771.21,158
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-07-13no65.562.768.32,754
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-07-20no67.965.270.52,757
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-07-27no66.263.069.41,928
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-08-03no64.460.568.41,213
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-08-10no64.760.868.51,315
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-08-17no71.568.274.81,791
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-08-24no65.461.169.71,231
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-08-31no67.563.771.31,510
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-09-07no66.062.070.01,327
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-09-14no69.866.373.31,693
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-09-21no67.863.572.01,291
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-09-28no69.565.473.61,328
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-10-05no68.965.172.71,612
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-10-12no65.461.369.41,484
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-10-19no62.357.866.71,320
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-10-26no68.364.771.81,909
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-11-02no65.561.669.41,471
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-11-09no67.663.871.51,419
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-11-16no68.063.872.31,191
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-11-23no70.166.573.61,649
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-11-30no69.565.973.01,758
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-12-07no64.459.369.5899
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-12-14no70.366.973.81,643
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-12-21no70.266.873.61,603
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2020-12-28no71.266.376.1726
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2021-01-11yes68.463.573.4985
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2021-01-18yes76.773.180.31,156
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2021-01-25yes70.866.375.2914
    Deport all (agree)Republicans2021-02-01yes71.564.678.4389
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-07-15no16.913.420.41,434
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-07-22no15.812.718.81,897
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-07-29no19.616.422.81,978
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-08-05no16.513.319.71,646
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-08-12no18.615.222.11,654
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-08-19no14.411.817.02,302
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-08-26no19.115.922.41,707
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-09-02no16.513.519.41,803
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-09-09no17.113.820.41,689
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-09-16no18.014.821.31,857
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-09-23no18.915.622.31,742
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-09-30no19.416.722.12,729
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-10-07no18.214.721.81,494
    Path for all (disagree)Democrats2019-10-14no19.815.823.91,200

    Showing the first 500 of 972 rows.

    By the point estimates the Republican line stays above the independent line and the independent line above the Democratic line in every week, and the pooled gap on the wall item is 65.4 points. Open points are four weeks in 2021 that are left out of every pooled estimate. Each point is one weekly wave and bands are 95% confidence intervals that rest on a model.Note: Party is the three-category party question (Democrat, Republican, independent), so Democrats and Republicans exclude leaners and independents include them. A week is drawn when it has at least 500 respondents on the item and at least 100 respondents with an effective sample of at least 100 in each of the two parties.Note: Open points are weeks after 28 December 2020. In the week of 18 January 2021 the Democratic and Republican shares move toward an even split on three of the four items, and the file does not say why.Source: Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape, July 2019 to February 2021; weighted (weight), opt-in panel

    The size of the 2024 ANES gap depends on the item

    The 2024 ANES time series asked 1010 itemsEstimandcount of items in the 2024 comparisonWeightsnone (count)Population2024 ANES immigration items usedPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series immigration questions, and Figure 9 compares them. Every item has a positive gap in all three views (all respondents, in-person and web). The gap runs from 19.7 (95% CI 16.8 to 22.7)19.7 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: children brought illegally should be sent backInterval95% CI 16.8 to 22.7n4,384Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points on whether children brought illegally should be sent back to 60.9 (95% CI 57.6 to 64.3)60.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: favor a border wallInterval95% CI 57.6 to 64.3n4,426Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series on the border wall. Among all respondents the largest gaps are on the wall, on whether illegal immigration increases crime (54.2 (95% CI 50.8 to 57.6)54.2 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: illegal immigration increases crimeInterval95% CI 50.8 to 57.6n4,391Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series) and on whether immigration is likely to take jobs (39.9 (95% CI 36.3 to 43.6)39.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: immigration likely takes jobsInterval95% CI 36.3 to 43.6n4,402Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series). The smallest are on children brought illegally, on opposing a path to citizenship (23.1 (95% CI 19.8 to 26.3)23.1 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: oppose a path to citizenshipInterval95% CI 19.8 to 26.3n4,401Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series) and on saying immigrants are bad for the economy (24.6 (95% CI 21.5 to 27.8)24.6 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: immigrants are bad for the economyInterval95% CI 21.5 to 27.8n4,391Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series), although the interval for ending birthright citizenship (25.9 (95% CI 22.3 to 29.6)25.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: favor ending birthright citizenshipInterval95% CI 22.3 to 29.6n4,424Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series) overlaps those of the last two. A gap in points is limited by how many people give the answer, and 4.9%4.9% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share giving the restrictive answer: children brought illegally should be sent backInterval95% CI 3.6% to 6.2%n2,331Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series of Democrats and 24.6%24.6% percent of respondents who answered the itemEstimandweighted share giving the restrictive answer: children brought illegally should be sent backInterval95% CI 22.0% to 27.3%n2,053Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series of Republicans said children brought illegally should be sent back.

    The question on the number of immigrants, the one asked since 1992, gives a gap of 28.9 (95% CI 25.0 to 32.9)28.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: decrease immigration levelsInterval95% CI 25.0 to 32.9n4,560Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points among all respondents when weighted with the post-election weight, 19.4 (95% CI 10.4 to 28.4)19.4 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: decrease immigration levelsInterval95% CI 10.4 to 28.4n849Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024, in-person interviewsSourceANES 2024 Time Series in person and 33.9 (95% CI 27.7 to 40.2)33.9 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Republican share minus weighted Democratic share giving the restrictive answer: decrease immigration levelsInterval95% CI 27.7 to 40.2n1,583Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024, web interviewsSourceANES 2024 Time Series on the web. On the other items the largest difference between the in-person and web gaps is 11.0 (95% CI 4.1 to 17.8)11.0 percentage pointsEstimandlargest absolute difference between the web gap and the in-person gap (Republican minus Democratic) across the nine items other than immigration levelsInterval95% CI 4.1 to 17.8n2,440Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points. The items asked before the election are weighted here with the post-election weight, and with the pre-election weight their gaps differ from these by at most 0.30.3 percentage pointsEstimandlargest absolute difference, over the four pre-election items, between the gap weighted with the post-election weight and the gap weighted with the pre-election weight (V240107a)Weightsw_post (V240107b, post-election); w_post_ftf and w_post_web for the mode viewsPopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the itemPeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points. Independent estimates sit between the party estimates on every item.

    Figure 9

    Republicans were more restrictive than Democrats on every 2024 ANES immigration item, most on the border wall

    Share giving the restrictive answer to the 2024 ANES immigration items, by party identification; leaners are in the parties and independents lean toward neither; rows ordered by the all-respondent gap; 95% intervals

    • Democrats
    • Independents
    • Republicans
    Show data
    Data for Republicans were more restrictive than Democrats on every 2024 ANES immigration item, most on the border wall
    RespondentsItemGroupShare (%)LowerUpperRespondents counted
    All respondentsFavor a border wallDemocrats15.613.417.72,332
    All respondentsFavor a border wallIndependents28.020.635.4302
    All respondentsFavor a border wallRepublicans76.573.979.12,094
    All respondentsIllegal immigration increases crimeDemocrats34.832.037.62,312
    All respondentsIllegal immigration increases crimeIndependents62.754.770.7301
    All respondentsIllegal immigration increases crimeRepublicans89.087.190.92,079
    All respondentsImmigration likely takes jobsDemocrats12.610.714.62,323
    All respondentsImmigration likely takes jobsIndependents36.528.544.5300
    All respondentsImmigration likely takes jobsRepublicans52.649.555.62,079
    All respondentsMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backDemocrats8.06.49.62,327
    All respondentsMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backIndependents20.413.727.1300
    All respondentsMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backRepublicans41.738.644.72,084
    All respondentsAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantDemocrats37.634.840.52,325
    All respondentsAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantIndependents50.342.058.5301
    All respondentsAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantRepublicans67.164.270.02,078
    All respondentsDecrease immigration levelsDemocrats29.827.232.52,390
    All respondentsDecrease immigration levelsIndependents44.536.652.5318
    All respondentsDecrease immigration levelsRepublicans58.755.861.72,170
    All respondentsFavor ending birthright citizenshipDemocrats14.812.716.92,334
    All respondentsFavor ending birthright citizenshipIndependents18.812.325.3300
    All respondentsFavor ending birthright citizenshipRepublicans40.737.743.82,090
    All respondentsImmigrants are bad for the economyDemocrats5.44.16.72,322
    All respondentsImmigrants are bad for the economyIndependents26.018.733.2301
    All respondentsImmigrants are bad for the economyRepublicans30.027.232.82,069
    All respondentsOppose a path to citizenshipDemocrats7.25.78.72,326
    All respondentsOppose a path to citizenshipIndependents21.214.427.9302
    All respondentsOppose a path to citizenshipRepublicans30.327.433.12,075
    All respondentsChildren brought illegally should be sent backDemocrats4.93.66.22,331
    All respondentsChildren brought illegally should be sent backIndependents14.08.219.8299
    All respondentsChildren brought illegally should be sent backRepublicans24.622.027.32,053
    In personFavor a border wallDemocrats14.29.618.7465
    In personFavor a border wallRepublicans78.472.784.1395
    In personIllegal immigration increases crimeDemocrats39.833.446.3459
    In personIllegal immigration increases crimeRepublicans92.989.396.5393
    In personImmigration likely takes jobsDemocrats11.77.515.9465
    In personImmigration likely takes jobsRepublicans47.340.354.2395
    In personMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backDemocrats4.82.07.6464
    In personMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backRepublicans32.526.038.9392
    In personAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantDemocrats30.724.736.7468
    In personAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantRepublicans62.555.869.2394
    In personDecrease immigration levelsDemocrats25.219.530.9460
    In personDecrease immigration levelsRepublicans44.637.651.5389
    In personFavor ending birthright citizenshipDemocrats11.97.716.2466
    In personFavor ending birthright citizenshipRepublicans33.527.040.1391
    In personImmigrants are bad for the economyDemocrats4.21.66.8466
    In personImmigrants are bad for the economyRepublicans24.718.630.7388
    In personOppose a path to citizenshipDemocrats6.23.19.4468
    In personOppose a path to citizenshipRepublicans24.418.530.4390
    In personChildren brought illegally should be sent backDemocrats0.60.01.6467
    In personChildren brought illegally should be sent backRepublicans11.97.316.4381
    WebFavor a border wallDemocrats17.614.121.1855
    WebFavor a border wallRepublicans76.172.080.1746
    WebIllegal immigration increases crimeDemocrats32.728.337.0846
    WebIllegal immigration increases crimeRepublicans87.684.490.7739
    WebImmigration likely takes jobsDemocrats12.69.515.7848
    WebImmigration likely takes jobsRepublicans55.751.060.5739
    WebMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backDemocrats10.37.513.1854
    WebMake unauthorized immigrants felons and send them backRepublicans45.040.349.7743
    WebAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantDemocrats38.333.742.8849
    WebAdapting to US customs is very or extremely importantRepublicans68.764.273.1737
    WebDecrease immigration levelsDemocrats29.325.133.5847
    WebDecrease immigration levelsRepublicans63.358.667.9736
    WebFavor ending birthright citizenshipDemocrats17.013.520.5856
    WebFavor ending birthright citizenshipRepublicans44.639.949.4746
    WebImmigrants are bad for the economyDemocrats5.73.67.9848
    WebImmigrants are bad for the economyRepublicans32.027.536.5737
    WebOppose a path to citizenshipDemocrats8.66.011.1849
    WebOppose a path to citizenshipRepublicans31.627.136.0738
    WebChildren brought illegally should be sent backDemocrats7.55.19.9854
    WebChildren brought illegally should be sent backRepublicans29.725.434.1738
    Gaps run from 19.7 points on children brought illegally to 60.9 on the wall. Each row plots the share of Democrats, independents and Republicans giving the restrictive answer, with 95% confidence intervals, and the views split interviews by mode. By the point estimate the independent dot lies between the party dots on every item.Note: All items use the post-election weight and respondents with a post-election interview, including the four items asked before the election, whose gaps with the pre-election weight are compared in the text; the in-person and web views use the post-election mode weights of the fresh in-person and fresh web samples, which leave out the panel and paper respondents.Note: An independent cell is drawn only where it has at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100, so the in-person view has no independent dots.Note: Answers of neither favor nor oppose and the middle answers count as not restrictive. Don't know and refusals are left out.Source: ANES 2024 Time Series; weighted (post-election weight V240107b, mode weights V240101b and V240102b)

    What these data cannot show

    Each survey interviews a new sample, so a change in a party's share can come from people changing their view, changing their party or being replaced by new adults, and these data cannot separate them. Party identification is itself an answer, and people may change it because of their views on immigration or change their views because of their party. Abrajano and Hajnal [3] argue for the first order, and these data can neither support nor reject it. The party lines also combine people of every origin, so changes in who belongs to each party are not separated from changes in what they say. Chapter 3.4, Hispanic, Black and Asian voters (planned) is planned to follow group differences in the vote.

    Levels cannot be compared across surveys. The ANES and the GSS differ by 18.8 (95% CI 14.2 to 23.4)18.8 percentage pointsEstimandGSS Republican share reduced minus ANES Republican share decreased (two surveys, different questions)Interval95% CI 14.2 to 23.4n3,259Weightsweight_use (GSS) and weight (VCF0009z, ANES)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points in the Republican share wanting fewer immigrants in 2024, and by 33.6 (95% CI 24.7 to 42.4)33.6 percentage pointsEstimandGSS in-person Republican share reduced minus ANES in-person Republican share decreased (two surveys, different questions)Interval95% CI 24.7 to 42.4n767Weightsweight_use (GSS) and weight_ftf (ANES)PopulationRepublican identifiers (leaners included) interviewed in person who answered the question on the number of immigrantsPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points among in-person respondents in each, and the chapter does not say which is closer to the truth. The ANES question has five answers that the chapter collapses to decreased against the rest, the GSS question has five answers collapsed the same way, and the CES, Nationscape and 2024 ANES policy items measure different things on different scales. The mode checks are limited to the years that have mode weights or a mode variable: the 2020 ANES levels and the 2021 GSS, which was mostly web, cannot be split, and the cumulative file has no post-election mode weights, so the in-person and web ANES estimates use the full-sample mode weights. The CES changes format and wording across years, so changes that cross 2018 are not read, and the Nationscape file has no leaner question for most weeks.

    The chapter has no measure of behavior, of elite positions or of the size of the foreign-born population. It does not ask whether the American gap is unusual: the European Social Survey has immigration questions in many countries but no party vote in the file used for this book, and a comparison on left-right placement would need an American question that matches theirs. Chapter 15.2, Immigration and local context (planned) is planned to take up the local foreign-born share. No result here shows that immigration attitudes changed party loyalty or that party loyalty changed attitudes.

    Data sources

    • ANES Cumulative Data FileCumulative Data File 1948-2024, immigration level item (VCF0879, VCF0879a) in 11 studies from 1992 to 2024 and thermometers (VCF0233, VCF0217); mode weights for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024Years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf and weight_web for the mode split · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • ANES 2024 Time Series2024 Time Series, ten immigration items (V241386, V241387, V241390, V241393, V242227 to V242229, V242232, V242235, V242236)Years: 2024 (pre-election and post-election interviews) · Weights: V240107b (post-election); V240101b and V240102b for the mode views · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • General Social SurveyRaw file 1994-2024: letin1a (2004-2024), the earlier forms letin and letin1, and the immigration module items immjobs, immcrime and immameco; interview mode from the raw fileYears: 1972-2024 (35 study years) · Weights: weight_use (wtssnrps from 2004) · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • Cooperative Election StudyCumulative CES, nine immigration policy items 2007-2021Years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight (single-wave weight) · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • NationscapeWeekly waves July 2019 to February 2021, four immigration policy itemsYears: 2019-07-18 to 2021-04-15 (85 weekly waves) · Weights: weight · License: Free after registration and acceptance of the Voter Study Group terms; also on Harvard Dataverse.

    All data sources

    Methods

    Sample. ANES Cumulative Data File respondents who gave an increased, same or decreased answer to the question on the number of immigrants (VCF0879a; don't know is missing): 32,751 respondents in 11 studies from 1992 to 2024. GSS respondents who answered letin1a, the number of immigrants nowadays should be (asked in 11 surveys from 2004 to 2024, none in 2020): 21,070 respondents. CES respondents who answered at least one of nine immigration policy items between 2007 and 2021: 474,358. Nationscape respondents who answered at least one of four policy items in the weeks from July 2019 to 28 December 2020: 456,979. ANES 2024 Time Series respondents with a post-election weight: 4,964. Party and estimand. Democrats and Republicans include leaners (ANES and CES seven-point party identification 1 to 3 and 5 to 7; GSS partyid 0 to 2 and 4 to 6); independents are those who lean toward neither party (ANES and CES 4, GSS 3). Nationscape uses the three-category party question, so its Democrats and Republicans exclude leaners and its independents include them. Members of other parties are in the all-respondent line only. Every outcome is the restrictive answer (wanting fewer immigrants, favoring a restrictive policy, or saying immigrants have a bad effect), as the wording table lists. The party gap is the Republican share minus the Democratic share in percentage points, the sign used in the chapter Sort dates by attitude. The thermometer gap is signed the other way (Democrats minus Republicans in warmth). Coding. Coding is read from the stored value labels and never from a correlation with party: ANES VCF0879 1 increased a lot to 5 decreased a lot and VCF0879a 1 increased, 3 same, 5 decreased; GSS letin1a, letin1 and letin 1 increased a lot to 5 reduced a lot and immjobs, immcrime and immameco 1 agree strongly to 5 disagree strongly (checked against the file labels in the build). CES items are 1 for support; the restrictive answer is support except for legal status, where it is oppose. Nationscape items are agree (1) or disagree (2) with not sure missing; the restrictive answer is agree except for the two path to citizenship items, where it is disagree. Weights. ANES weight VCF0009z, with weight_ftf and weight_web for in-person and web respondents in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024 (2008 was a single-mode in-person study; 2020 has no mode weights). GSS weight_use (wtssnrps from 2004); the GSS mode is joined from the raw file. CES weight, the single-wave weight. Nationscape weight. The cumulative file weight VCF0009z is the full-sample weight, and the questions on the number of immigrants and the thermometers are post-election items. The file also has a post-election weight (VCF9999, weight_postelection) for 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016, 2020 and 2024 among the studies with the question; the gap with that weight differs from the gap shown by at most 1.2 points (largest in 2020), and the text gives the 2020 and 2024 gaps with it. The file has no post-election mode weights, so the ANES in-person and web estimates use weight_ftf and weight_web. The 2024 Time Series items use the post-election weight V240107b, and the mode views use the post-election mode weights V240101b and V240102b of the fresh in-person and fresh web samples, which leave out the panel and paper respondents. The four items asked before the election (V241386, V241387, V241390, V241393) use the post-election weight like the others; with the pre-election weight V240107a their gaps differ by at most 0.3 points. In-person ANES view. The in-person series combines the studies of 1992 to 1998 and 2004 (in person by design; weight VCF0009z) with the in-person samples of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024 (mode ftf; weight_ftf). The 2000 study, which mixed in-person and telephone interviews with no interview-form variable in the file, and the telephone study of 2002 are left out, and 2020 had no in-person interviews. Intervals. 95% intervals use the Kish effective sample size with a normal approximation, treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignore the strata and clusters of the designs. A gap, a change between surveys and a mode difference combine the two standard errors in quadrature, treating the two estimates as independent. Adjacent ANES studies are treated as independent although the 2020 and 2024 studies re-interviewed some earlier respondents. The CES and Nationscape are opt-in panels, so their intervals rest on a model. In 2004 the GSS letin1 and letin1a forms went to different respondents; in 2014 and 2024 most respondents who answered letin1 also answered letin1a, so the two forms are compared by their point estimates in those years. Suppression. A Democratic or Republican cell in a yearly series needs at least 150 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100; an independent or all-respondent cell, and every cell in a mode, item, CES or 2024 split, needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of at least 100. A gap needs both party cells to clear the floor. A Nationscape week needs at least 500 respondents on the item. Dating by reference. The date of the opening applies the rule of the chapter Sort dates by attitude to the five-category ANES answer (VCF0879, 1 increased a lot to 5 decreased a lot; 2000 is not coded to five answers): the Republican minus Democratic gap in the within-year z-score (weighted mean and standard deviation of all respondents with the item that year), a threshold of 0.25 standard deviations, the point-estimate date as the first study from which the estimate stays above it and the lower-bound date as the first study from which the lower end of the 95% interval stays above it. The z-score standardizes among all respondents with the item, as the code of that chapter does; standardizing among party identifiers only, the lower end of the 2012 interval is 0.2500, at the mark. The 2012 in-person and web gaps standardize within each mode. CES. Weights and cells use the single-wave weight. Items are check-all-that-apply through 2017 and support or oppose from 2018 according to the guide to the cumulative policy file, so the figure breaks between 2017 and 2019 and no level or gap is compared across the break. The per-year sign check recomputes the Republican minus Democratic gap in the restrictive direction for every item-year and finds it above zero in all of them, so the 2014 reversal of the ACA repeal item has no counterpart in these items. Nationscape. Weekly bins are the Monday of the field week. Weeks after 28 December 2020 are drawn as open points and left out of the pooled and half-year estimates: only four 2021 weeks have 500 respondents on the items, and in the weeks of 11 and 18 January 2021 the party shares are far from the 2019 and 2020 weeks; the week of 18 January moves toward an even split on three of the four items. Half-year estimates pool the weeks of July to December 2019 and of July to December 2020.

    References

    1. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J. (2014). Public Attitudes Toward Immigration. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 225-249. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818
    3. Abrajano, Marisa; Hajnal, Zoltan L. (2015). White Backlash: Immigration, Race, and American Politics. Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400866489
    4. American National Election Studies (2022). ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release: User Guide and Codebook. Stanford University and the University of Michigan. electionstudies.org/data-center/2020-time-series-study/
    5. Dagonel, Angelo (2023). Guide to the Cumulative CES Policy Preferences. Harvard Dataverse, Cumulative CES Policy Preferences, version 3 (guide last updated 2023-01-18). doi:10.7910/DVN/OSXDQO
    6. Tausanovitch, Chris; Vavreck, Lynn (2023). Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project (data version 20211215). Harvard Dataverse, version 1. doi:10.7910/DVN/CQFP3Z

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026immigration,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Immigration},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/immigration},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 3 October 2026.}
}

    Same question at another grain

    These chapters take up the same axis with a different unit of analysis: individuals, places or countries.