Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Support for Mass Deportation Drops Well Below Half as People Consider Other Options

News

Support for Mass Deportation Drops Well Below Half as People Consider Other Options

Sharon Aguilera, 27, from Indiana, gathers with protestors on Highland Avenue in National City, San Diego County, on January 31, 2025, to demonstrate against anti-immigrant policies towards Mexicans living and working in the US and San Diego.

(Photo by Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Polling on what to do with undocumented immigrants in the US has found seemingly contradictory results. When mass deportation is asked about by itself, some polls have found slight majority support. But that is not Americans’ preferred solution. When given another option – a path to citizenship – a substantially larger majority chooses that over mass deportation. Also, as people get more information about both options, support for mass deportation drops – to as low as a one-in-four.

Americans are clearly concerned about the number of undocumented immigrants, and when the only option they are given to address that problem is mass deportation, a majority may go along with it. For example, a September 2024 poll, which asked whether they favor “the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants,” found a small majority of 54% support. ( Ipsos/Scripps News) A more recent poll that asked the same question found the public divided 49% to 49%. ( NPR/PBS News/Marist, January 2025)


But asked whether they favor, “allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time,” a much larger majority of 70% were in support. ( Gallup, June 2024)

What is most relevant is what Americans say when they are given both options and asked which they prefer – which more accurately reflects the reality of the policy landscape. Given both options, majorities consistently prefer a path to citizenship over mass deportation. An October 2024 poll found just 33% support “deporting all people living in the U.S. illegally,” while 67% preferred “developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents.” ( SSRS/CNN) Similar results have been found by the Public Religion Research Institute since 2013.

Even without both options being presented, providing more information about mass deportation reduces support to the below half. An August 2024 poll asked whether they would support “deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries even if they have lived here for a number of years, have jobs and no criminal record” – which accurately describes the majority of undocumented immigrants – and found just 45% in support and 55% opposed. ( Marquette University)

When people are given detailed information about both policy options and allowed to deliberate on arguments for and against each, support for mass deportation drops even further. An October 2024 survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) provided respondents with a detailed briefing about undocumented immigrants and current deportation efforts, provided them descriptions of the mass deportation and path to citizenship policy proposals, and had them evaluate arguments for and against each. Finally, asked whether they prefer mass deportation, a path to citizenship with certain requirements, or neither option, just a quarter chose mass deportation (26%), including just 40% of Republicans. Overall, a bipartisan majority did not prefer mass deportation – instead choosing a path to citizenship (58%) or neither (11%) – including 58% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. ( PPC, October 2024)

The overall drop in support for mass deportation as people are given more options and more information is driven primarily by Republicans, whose support goes from nearly nine-in-ten to just four-in-ten. When asked about mass deportation by itself, with no details about the policy, the Ipsos/Scripps poll found 86% of Republicans in favor. When given both options, but still no details about each policy, the SSRS/CNN poll found just half of Republicans prefer mass deportation rather than a path to citizenship (52% to 48%, statistically divided). In the more comprehensive PPC survey, just 40% of Republicans supported mass deportation. Among Trump voters, it was just 41%.

The underlying attitudes towards each policy help explain the public’s preferences. In the PPC survey, people evaluated arguments for and against both options before making their final choice. The arguments favoring mass deportation were found convincing by majorities overall, which explains the support for that policy when presented as the sole option. The arguments that these people are breaking our immigration laws, using public services, and lowering wages resonate with many Americans. However, the arguments against mass deportation and for a path to citizenship – that they are integral to our economy, and most have been living here peacefully for over a decade – did much better. Thus, when asked to choose, that is why a path to citizenship is the preferred choice.

Public opinion on mass deportation, it turns out, is quite clear when the question being asked is how the public most prefers to address undocumented immigrants. When people are given more information about the options available, the details of mass deportation, and given the opportunity to think through the options, support for mass deportation as the preferred solution drops well below half, overall and among Republicans.

Steven Kull is the program director of the Program for Public Consultation. Evan Charles Lewitus is a research analyst at Voice of the People.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less