Is Immigration A “Happy Problem?”

Starting with a poll taken in 2012, the Marquette University Law School has frequently included a question that asked: “Which comes closest to your view about undocumented immigrants who are currently working in the U.S.?” Respondents were asked to choose among three answers:

1. Undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in their jobs and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship.
2. They should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as temporary guest workers, but not to apply for U.S. citizenship.
3. They should be required to leave their jobs and leave the U.S.”

The graph below tracks the responses over time. As the next graph shows, responses varied over the 22 times this question was asked. However, half or more of the respondents would let the immigrants stay and apply for citizenship (shown in green).

This compares to the other two options—stay as a guest worker (in yellow) or leave (in red). Each was chosen by around 20% of the respondents. However, in the most recent survey, taken last April, there was an upsurge in support for making undocumented immigrants leave the U.S., at the expense of staying and applying for citizenship.

As the next graph shows the average responses for all 22 times the question was asked, by whether the respondent self-identified as Republican, independent or Democrat. Clearly, Democrats, as a group, are the most favorable to allowing immigrants to stay and apply for citizenship. That said, a plurality of Republican respondents favored allowing the immigrants to stay and apply for citizenship.

The next graph compares results from the two recent surveys in the spring of 2022 and 2024. In 2022, 47% of Republicans supported allowing the immigrants to stay. By 2024 this proportion had dropped to 21%. Meanwhile, the percentage of Republicans who would force the immigrants to leave the U.S. grew from 30% to 56%.

By contrast, the percentage of Democrats that would allow the immigrants to stay and apply for citizenship was in the 80s in both surveys.

It seems evident that former president Donald Trump’s attacks on immigrants have had an effect on Republican voters. Recently, his use of dehumanizing language has escalated, claiming that the U.S. is “like a garbage can for the world,” that the Democrats have “unleashed an army of migrant gangs waging a campaign of violence,” and “every time I come up and talk about what they’ve done to our country I get angry and angrier.”

A recent study from the University of Wisconsin under a grant from the National Institute of Justice contradicts Trump’s claims about immigrants and crime. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the analysis found that immigrants had a lower crime rate than did US born citizens, and that undocumented immigrants had a lower crime rate than did legal immigrants.

Texas was chosen because Texas law requires that when that state’s law enforcement agencies make an arrest, the agencies are required to look up that person’s place of birth and citizenship. The agencies send the person’s fingerprints to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which reports the person’s immigration status. This status becomes part of any criminal record in Texas.

The researchers used that data to calculate the average arrest rates for three groups: U.S.-born citizens (in blue in the graph below), immigrants who are here legally (in rust) and undocumented immigrants (in green). The next chart shows that undocumented immigrants have the lowest arrest rate for violent crime, property crime, drugs and traffic violations.

The next graph further breaks down the data on violent crimes. Again, undocumented immigrants have the lowest arrest rates, just the opposite of what Trump claims.

The study used data from 2012 through 2018, the late years of the Obama administration and the early years of the Trump administration. The report includes several graphs of crime rates in Texas and California during these years. In every case the rate is lower among immigrants than among people born in the U.S. (California data does not distinguish between documented and undocumented immigrants.) In the words of the study:

We find no evidence, descriptive or otherwise, to suggest that the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration had a meaningful effect on immigrant criminality, whether measured as violence, property, drug, or traffic offenses.

Trump consistently and increasingly paints the United States as a hell hole. The evidence supports the opposite conclusion—people want to immigrate to the U.S. because they believe that life is better here: they are literally voting with their feet. Perhaps Trump would be happier if the roles were reversed—if Americans were fleeing to Venezuela in large numbers.

Looking at problems in the private sector, a professor of mine referred to “happy problems.” These are the problems that accompany success. Perhaps demand for a product exceeds the ability to supply it, leading to quality issues. In this view, MAGA constitutes the primary threat to American greatness.

Recently, the Washington Post collaborated with YouGov to test voters’ support or opposition to more than 100 policy proposals from the two major presidential candidates.

Here is a list of Trump’s proposals on immigration, along with the percentage of poll respondents who supported them, arranged from most supported to least. For example, 82% like Trump’s proposal to deport gang members and drug dealers.

Next is Kamala Harris’ list of immigration proposals:

Remarkably, only three of the fifteen proposals lacked majority support, notably Harris’ suggestion to increase the number of refugees admitted. I find that disturbing.

The two lists may suggest one reason that developing a consensus about what should be included in an effective policy on immigration is so difficult. So long as there are governments that oppress their people, moving to the United States, whether legally or illegally, is likely to retain its attraction.