Northwestern immigration study finds partisan split over migrant status
Interviews with 65 California party activists found Democrats and Republicans divide over undocumented migrants but often support citizenship paths.
By Priya Raghavan · Science Reporter
3 min read
A Northwestern immigration study found that Democratic and Republican activists in Southern California often describe undocumented migrants in sharply different moral terms, even as many arrive at similar policy preferences. Northwestern University said the research matters because party activists help shape political agendas at a time when immigration enforcement has become more punitive.
The study, by Jesse Yeh, a political sociologist and assistant professor of instruction in legal studies at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, was published in May in Law & Society Review under the title “Meanings of migrant illegality.”
Yeh interviewed 65 Democratic and Republican activists in Orange and San Bernardino counties between 2020 and 2021, according to Northwestern. The participants came from local party clubs, included county party officers and formed a multiracial group with a median age of 56.
Northwestern said the interviews averaged nearly two hours and covered political activism, broad political beliefs, the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, immigration and other forms of lawbreaking. California offered a useful setting for the research, Yeh said, because it is a liberal state with a history that includes the rise of the New Right and the 1994 anti-migrant ballot measure Proposition 187.
What did the Northwestern immigration study find?
Yeh found a clear partisan divide in how activists talk about undocumented migration. Northwestern said Democratic respondents were more likely to see migrants as people similar to themselves who deserve rights, while Republican respondents were more likely to frame undocumented migrants as lawbreakers outside full social membership.
At the same time, Yeh reported broad agreement on some preferred outcomes. More Democrats leaned toward amnesty and more Republicans favored strict enforcement and deportation, but many respondents in both parties supported a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants.
The distinction often turned on whether respondents believed a person belonged in U.S. society, not only whether that person violated a statute, Yeh found. Northwestern said views about belonging were frequently connected to assumptions about class, race and ethnicity.
How did activists talk about jobs, benefits and citizenship?
Yeh said the activists he interviewed were not mainly focused on immigrants competing for their own jobs. They were more concerned with whether immigrants should be eligible for work and public benefits, with many respondents saying citizens should receive priority before immigrants receive public support.
Northwestern highlighted two interview examples showing how different legal and moral starting points could lead to similar policy preferences. A Republican respondent placed high value on legal status but supported helping undocumented immigrants become citizens while removing those who commit crimes. A Democratic respondent said legal status mattered less because of the pressures that drive migration, but also favored citizenship for people who work and do not break the law.
Yeh said that pattern suggests many people use “criminal” broadly when discussing immigration. Minor violations, lack of a criminal record, or association with people believed to be gang-related can all shape how respondents judge eligibility for citizenship, according to Northwestern’s account of the research.
What does immigration status mean in this debate?
Violating immigration law is a civil offense, not a criminal one, Yeh said. That distinction matters because detention and deportation have historically been defended as non-punitive, even as immigration policy has become more severe.
Yeh also said legal categories can shift. Northwestern cited recent litigation involving Temporary Protected Status as an example of how a person’s classification can change with government policy.
For lawmakers, Yeh said the study points to the importance of how the country defines eligibility for becoming American. He said respondents across party lines tended to support young people brought to the United States as children and eligible for DACA, and he argued that legal pathways remain narrow for immigrants without U.S. relatives or a job lined up before arrival.
This story draws on original reporting from Phys.org.