Althouse: "Still, it is wrong to read Trump’s November victory as an endorsement of his immigration policies."

January 26, 2017

"Still, it is wrong to read Trump’s November victory as an endorsement of his immigration policies."

"In fact, over the course of the 2016 campaign, supporters of both major parties have moved away from supporting a border fence and deportation, the two policies at the heart of Trump’s first executive actions on immigration."

The conclusion of "Trump’s Election Doesn’t Mean Americans Are More Opposed To Immigration" by Dan Hopkins, an associate professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, writing at FiveThirtyEight. Graphs and polls at the link.

69 comments:

Ambrose said...: Illegal immigration.; 1/26/17, 1:49 PM
madAsHell said...: I'm right!! You just need to read my charts. It's all there!!; 1/26/17, 1:50 PM
clint said...: I'm confused. Or maybe he's confused.

What do border fences and deportation have to do with immigration?; 1/26/17, 1:53 PM
eric said...: And yet, that's what we a focused on and why we all punished his primary opponents. Because of his policies concerning illegal immigration.

I can't count how many times I was laughed at and told he was lying to me about his tough immigration stance. It was naturally assumed during the process that his supporters were all hard line on illegal immigration.

And, to top it off, he was e forward by Sessions!

But, let's forget all that. I really voted for him because I want more subsidies for solar power plants, I want more taxes on fossil fuels and I want more money going to planned Parenthood.

That's why I really voted for him. Oh, and because I want more liberals on the supreme Court.; 1/26/17, 1:53 PM
Drago said...: Top. Men.

Top. Men.; 1/26/17, 1:54 PM
eric said...: And, to top it off, he was e forward by Sessions!

Endorsed.; 1/26/17, 1:54 PM
rehajm said...: Ya, he was gonna go through with what he promised until you pointed this out. Good thing for you he's the kind of President who monitors the media to learn what people like you are thinking.; 1/26/17, 1:56 PM
Brando said...: What the people who voted for him want (and what a majority of Americans want, which is another thing) now, and what they wanted in November, can be debated endlessly. Did his voters represent wanting to drain the swamp? Does this mean tax cuts are popular? Does this mean women wanting abortions should be punished? If only we could figure out what's popular!

But that's why we have elections. You win, you make the call, and if you don't care what's popular when you make the call, you still do what you like. Obama's election may or may not have meant people wanted the ACA, and opinion polls at the time may have said something else, but that didn't stop him from passing it.; 1/26/17, 1:57 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Remember when elections had consequences? Man, those were crazy, hazy days.; 1/26/17, 1:58 PM
Nonapod said...: First off, the title of this article is a facile equivocation. I don't know of too many people who are actually opposed to legal immigration.

And further, the analysis of 538 is hardly beyond reproach. Did they predict a Trump win? Of course, that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed outright either, just that you have to take into consideration their clear biases along with the deeply flawed nature of polling and data aggregation from asymmetric sources.; 1/26/17, 1:58 PM
mccullough said...: Trump won 30 states. Ask those people what they think. Trump doesn't care what people in California, New York, and Illinois think.; 1/26/17, 2:01 PM
Michael K said...: There is an argument to be made about legal immigration, especially the indentured servitude of H1B visas so beloved by the high tech industry in California.

First build the wall and we will talk.; 1/26/17, 2:01 PM
Brando said...: " I don't know of too many people who are actually opposed to legal immigration. "

A lot of people do--seeing immigrants as competing for U.S. jobs. Just a question of how much.; 1/26/17, 2:02 PM
traditionalguy said...: Fake Statistics News.so now DJT has been debunked with Facts. And when I snap my fingers you will awaken and believe that Fact. And when we say the words you will Resist Trump with all your might.; 1/26/17, 2:03 PM
Drago said...: STOP THE TRAINS!!!

An Associate Professor of Government is making a pronouncement!!; 1/26/17, 2:04 PM
Drago said...: McCullough: "Trump won 30 states. Ask those people what they think."

Why should we? Are those horrible people in those 30 states ACTUAL Associate Professors of Government?!!; 1/26/17, 2:06 PM
n.n said...: The last gasp of JournoListic integrity.

The issue is excessive immigration. The issue is mass emigration.

The issue is immigration reform including refugee crises following catastrophic anthropogenic climate change caused by social justice adventurism.

The issue is [class] diversity (i.e. "judged by the color of their skin").

The issue is political corruption, scientific mysticism, and violation of civil and human rights inherent to the Pro-Choice doctrine.

Still, it is right to read Trump's November victory as an endorsement of his policy to place Americans, black, brown, white, etc. first. To tend our garden and to share the fruits of our labor in trade and charity.; 1/26/17, 2:07 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: It's amazing how there always seems to be a timely study out of academia showing whatever the Republicans are about to do is wrong and unpopular.; 1/26/17, 2:07 PM
Krumhorn said...: The lefties are renting their garments and gnashing their teeth. Next, maybe, they'll pull out shards of glass and drive them into their eyeballs so that they don't have to see what comes next.

Aqueous humour will fill the storm drains, and some atoll in the Pacific will finally succumb to the rising oceans.

The Daily Caller reported that EPA employees are coming to work crying. As Mark Steyn pointed out, they had better be careful because someone around there will declare their faces to be wetlands and face years of regulatory hell.

I am SO enjoying the pain of the looselugnutlibruls. Does it show?

- Krumhorn; 1/26/17, 2:11 PM
MacMacConnell said...: A short article that is relevant to what Trump is doing.

"Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/; 1/26/17, 2:12 PM
David Smith said...: Oh, look, there's a cemetery.

Start whistling, quick!; 1/26/17, 2:13 PM
Robert Cook said...: "' I don't know of too many people who are actually opposed to legal immigration. '

"A lot of people do--seeing immigrants as competing for U.S. jobs. Just a question of how much."

If they want to gripe about others competing for U.S. Jobs, they need to demand tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home.; 1/26/17, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure Dan, sure.; 1/26/17, 2:19 PM
eric said...: Blogger Bob Loblaw said...
It's amazing how there always seems to be a timely study out of academia showing whatever the Republicans are about to do is wrong and unpopular.

This worked in the past.

Like robots, theyve not received new programming yet, so they will keep trying what worked in the past.; 1/26/17, 2:24 PM
Oso Negro said...: I have moved more toward Trump's policy. I am hoping for mass deportation. A stream of weeping Mexicans heading south that will be so heart-wrenching that Hollywood will be making sentimental movies about it 50 years from now.; 1/26/17, 2:24 PM
Mark said...: For the record, "Trump's" immigration policies are the established statutory law of the United States. All his executive orders have done is to faithfully execute the pre-existing law.

If people have a problem with these immigration policies, they should be complaining to Congress.; 1/26/17, 2:26 PM
buwaya said...: "The Daily Caller reported that EPA employees are coming to work crying."

That, above all, is good news.

" they need to demand tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home."

IIRC there were promises along those lines. NAFTA renegotiations and TPP and making tariff deals.
Some of this seems to be going, re TPP for instance.; 1/26/17, 2:27 PM
Gahrie said...: If they want to gripe about others competing for U.S. Jobs, they need to demand tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home

Isn't this Trump's stated position?; 1/26/17, 2:28 PM
ccscientist said...: It is funny that Obama and the dems in congres figured that winning was a mandate for all the things they wanted to do, but when a republican wins it isn't a mandate. An election is a murky mandate. You say lots of things and then you win. Some people voted for you in spite of some of the things you said you would do. The only way to govern is to act like it is a mandate and if you guess wrong you don't get reelected. Sorry, no other way to do it.; 1/26/17, 2:29 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Isn't this Trump's stated position?"

Yes, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.; 1/26/17, 2:30 PM
Nonapod said...: A lot of people do--seeing immigrants as competing for U.S. jobs. Just a question of how much.

As others have pointed out, what some people are concerned with may have more to do with what they see as mass unchecked immigration than about case-by-case legal immigration.

But it all comes down to semantics. The left has an unfortunate tendency to characterize a lot of working class red state voters as ignorant xenophobes who are probably motivated more by general racism than employment worries. And many left leaning commenters use rhetorical trickery to categorize illegal immigration as just "immigration". This way they can use the old refrain about America being a country of immigrants and what-not. And it also ties into the whole concept of their opposition being ignorant racists who are just afraid of brown folks while on the other hand they are enlightened and reasonable people.; 1/26/17, 2:31 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: 538 is pretty decent. Yes, they're all young and slightly left of center, but they do believe in data, and they do separate facts from opinions.

Nate Silver and his crew are light years ahead of, say, Vox.

Having said that, Trump's signature issues: blue collar work for Americans, immigration and trade, all helped him win. Don't need graphs to tell me this.; 1/26/17, 2:32 PM
steve uhr said...: The doomsday clock moved closer to midnight today. A couple nukes prob more cost effective than a wall.; 1/26/17, 2:33 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: If they want to gripe about others competing for U.S. Jobs, they need to demand tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home.

We are. Robert Cook's confused. Trump is not the Republican Robert Cook is used to. Trump invites trade union leaders to the Oval Office and promises them jobs for their union members.

Union leaders then go out in front of the press and speak well of Trump.; 1/26/17, 2:34 PM
rehajm said...: FiveThirtyEight gives my New England Patriots a 61% chance of winning Super Bowl Lee.

This is not comforting.; 1/26/17, 2:36 PM
Earnest Prole said...: He's got math to prove it, and he's fresh off 538's election triumph.; 1/26/17, 2:36 PM
Mattman26 said...: My goodness, these people are so out to lunch.

I'm pretty sure if you polled Americans---those who hate Trump, those who love him, and those in-between---to name one actual policy Trump promised to pursue, "We're gonna build the wall" would almost certainly come out on top.

He ran on it, he beat 15 or so primary challengers as well as the Democratic anointed candidate with it; and these guys are warning him it doesn't have support among the electorate. Okay, whatever.

While I was writing this my phone buzzed with an AP update: "Trump calling for 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for the southern border wall."

I think if you did that poll I described, "They're going to pay for it" would be in second place.; 1/26/17, 2:37 PM
Michael K said...: "Isn't this Trump's stated position?"

Yes, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

There are thousands of Democrats, maybe millions, turning blue as we speak.

Cookie, be careful.; 1/26/17, 2:39 PM
Luke Lea said...: An endorsement of which of his immigration policies. From the very get to, in an interview with Chuck Todd on his airplane, Trump promised that whatever he did would be done in "a very humane" way.; 1/26/17, 2:39 PM
Brando said...: "If they want to gripe about others competing for U.S. Jobs, they need to demand tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home. "

One thing I'll say for Trump is he's at least consistent on that.

"But it all comes down to semantics. The left has an unfortunate tendency to characterize a lot of working class red state voters as ignorant xenophobes who are probably motivated more by general racism than employment worries. And many left leaning commenters use rhetorical trickery to categorize illegal immigration as just "immigration". This way they can use the old refrain about America being a country of immigrants and what-not. And it also ties into the whole concept of their opposition being ignorant racists who are just afraid of brown folks while on the other hand they are enlightened and reasonable people."

Well that's just it--some of us are fine in general with legal immigration, and think in many areas it helps our economy more than it strains it, but it'd be hard to find anyone short of an extreme libertarian or anarchist who thinks "anyone who wants to come" is a reasonable limit. Can we really take on 100 million people if they tried to come in right now, of any skill level?

I don't know what the right level is, but most people can understand that there is some upper limit beyond which our resources and economy is stretched. You don't have to be a xenophobe to think that.; 1/26/17, 2:43 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: Trump is talking tariffs on goods produced overseas and lowering corporate tax rates so that businesses will relocate production to the U.S.

Sounds like "demand[ing] tax punishment for corporations that do not bring their outsourced jobs back home" to me.; 1/26/17, 2:44 PM
Ken B said...: No vote for Trump counts as an endorsement of anything he said. Unlike votes for Clinton, which count as a rejection of everything he said.; 1/26/17, 2:47 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Trump is talking tariffs on goods produced overseas and lowering corporate tax rates so that businesses will relocate production to the U.S."

You say "is" as if it's already happening.

Let's wait and see if it actually comes to pass.; 1/26/17, 2:48 PM
Robert Cook said...: "We are. Robert Cook's confused. Trump is not the Republican Robert Cook is used to. Trump invites trade union leaders to the Oval Office and promises them jobs for their union members."

Let's see if his promises come true.; 1/26/17, 2:49 PM
Robert Cook said...: If Trump is actually able to bring a substantial number of substantial jobs back to the USA, resulting in substantial numbers of Americans obtaining well-paying jobs, I'll applaud him for that.

(Note the qualifications in the sentence.); 1/26/17, 2:50 PM
southcentralpa said...: My suggestion for the professor:

1) Get on the Turnpike
2) Get off on an exit that doesn't say "Pittsburgh" or "Harrisburg"
3) Strike up conversation(s)
4) Return to Philly after you actually find someone who doesn't agree with Trump on immigration (caution: it may take you a day or two); 1/26/17, 3:04 PM
GRW3 said...: Sometimes, the jokes just write themselves...; 1/26/17, 3:05 PM
John said...: "Although Trump’s position on immigration is well known, it’s harder to determine how the public feels. And while many think that Trump’s election reflects an anti-immigration turn in public attitudes, the opposite is closer to the truth."

First, the media has struggled to understand Trump's position on many issues. (Trump has struggled himself to define most of his positions - or he's using vagueness as a negotiating tactic) To suggest his "position on immigration is well known" is false.

Second, the misuse of the terms immigration and anti-immigration is why this author and most of the media get it wrong. Trump and many of those who voted for him (and I would suggest some who didn't) are opposed to ILLEGAL, immigration.

Not using the ILLEGAL qualifier is either intentional (fake), or demonstrates the inability to understand the difference.; 1/26/17, 3:07 PM
Big Mike said...: If Trump is actually able to bring a substantial number of substantial jobs back to the USA, resulting in substantial numbers of Americans obtaining well-paying jobs, I'll applaud him for that.

Oh, bullshit. You are never going to applaud Donald Trump.; 1/26/17, 3:07 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: It is certainly true that Trump may fail to deliver on some of his campaign promises. However, the first few days of his administration also show that he is going to try to deliver on them.

And it makes perfect sense that he would. Trump is a billionaire jet-setting business man with a gorgeous wife and what appears to be a great family. He was famous and popular. So why would he give up such a great life and make lots of enemies. So he can piss-off the people who elected him? Go down in history as a liar who sold people a bill of goods with no intentions of keeping his word?; 1/26/17, 3:08 PM
Big Mike said...: @mccullough, remove Cook County and Trump has Illinois, too.; 1/26/17, 3:09 PM
Todd said...: Luke Lea said... [hush][hide comment]
An endorsement of which of his immigration policies. From the very get to, in an interview with Chuck Todd on his airplane, Trump promised that whatever he did would be done in "a very humane" way.

1/26/17, 2:39 PM

True!

We will NOT be permitted to eat them, nor simply drive them into the sea. They won't be hobbled (like Democrats used to do to the blacks they owned, if they ran away and were caught) nor will they be driven into the desert to die. They will (I suspect) simply be deported following the existing deportation process. You know, as the law defines...; 1/26/17, 3:16 PM
Robert Cook said...: Let's hope that Trump doesn't keep all his promises.; 1/26/17, 3:21 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: Trump, in fact, was engaged in bombing the hell out of Mosul, Iraq, and parts of Libya as well, on the very day he was inaugurated, and even before he was inaugurated. He’s got 8,000 troops plus mercenaries, contractors, and allied troops adding up to over 40,000 people occupying Afghanistan — a war that his predecessor had ended. And he had this force in place even before inauguration. He’s got a major war underway in Iraq, another war famously ended by the guy who came before him. And this war, too, he started even before showing up in Washington.

You really didn't understand that this was satirical? That Obama put those troops in place? That Obama was the one choosing who was to live and who was to die on Tuesdays?; 1/26/17, 3:26 PM
Che Dolf said...: "The government and the media also conspire to present immigration as a shiny wonderful gift to the country, opposed only by a few nativists and xenophobes, withholding unpleasant facts and generally operating as cheerleaders and gatekeepers. At present, 25% of the country support deportation and a wall, with another 30% supporting a wall and very limited immigration, with deportation optional."

- educationrealist (coincidentally, the 2nd link in his essay goes to Althouse); 1/26/17, 3:29 PM
Michael K said...: Another blank profile. Are the lefty trolls just getting out of the seminar ?

Does the DNC pay overtime ?; 1/26/17, 3:57 PM
Michael K said...: Cookie, you might, before you rely on Counterpunch, read a bit of Small Wars Journal about a plan to occupy limited geographical areas of Afghanistan and leave the rest to the Taliban. Back in the days before the Soviets invaded, the king was called "The Mayor of Kabul" as the civilized Afghans never ruled the hinterlands.

I know your Marxist ideology doesn't think much of strategy but there are others who do.; 1/26/17, 4:01 PM
mockturtle said...: I'm convinced that university professors are among the least informed people in the country. Maybe the world.; 1/26/17, 4:02 PM
Ron Snyder said...: Why do you give 538 any credit? They were as wrong as all the others in predicting/polling the 2016 political events.; 1/26/17, 4:06 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Not convinced by 538's charts. People are tired of being lied to about what DC is actually doing with immigration. It was always a shell game and we were told it had to be "comprehensive" -- which is BS. Trump came out and said build a wall and then we'll sort out the rest. Simple. Doable. By the time it comes to the dreamers and ag workers we'll have the democrats on board shaping the final bills too. Or they will further marginalize themselves.; 1/26/17, 4:31 PM
Rance Fasoldt said...: Think of immigration as "using a car that doesn't belong to you:" (1) you can rent a car, or (2) you can steal a car. Being OK with #1 doesn't mean you are OK with #2. Does that help you academics (and journalists) out there?; 1/26/17, 4:35 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: steve uhr said...
The doomsday clock moved closer to midnight today. A couple nukes prob more cost effective than a wall.
1/26/17, 2:33 PM

Correction: political partisans moved the clock closer to midnight.; 1/26/17, 4:42 PM
Gretchen said...: And we are supposed to believe the media because ....
their election charts were wrong too.; 1/26/17, 4:59 PM
tcrosse said...: I'm convinced that university professors are among the least informed people in the country. Maybe the world.
Not necessarily. But one of the occupational hazards is to pontificate on matters outside of one's field. Excuable because there's always someone to listen.; 1/26/17, 5:38 PM
MikeD said...: These people are delusional!538 & all the other "reading animal entrails" prophets who were so wrong on the lection want us to believe them now?; 1/26/17, 6:39 PM
n.n said...: Bad Lieutenant:

The twilighters are concerned that people are not taking them seriously. For example, the refusal of the White House Press Corp to telecommute; or environmental lobbyists to curb their jetsetter lifestyles. I imagine an end to hostilities with the Soviet Union... I mean, Russia, was also a factor to advance the clock.; 1/26/17, 6:55 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: It was always a shell game and we were told it had to be "comprehensive" -- which is BS.

The reason that we were told that immigration reform had to be comprehensive was that Harry Reid, and to some lesser extent, Obama, insisted that it be comprehensive. There was never enough money or support behind normalization/citizenship for (typically functionally illiterate) illegal immigrants. There was plenty of money for H1B high skill immigration "reform" (arguably, just the opposite - making H1B immigrants even more dependent upon their employers, requiring that they go back to their native countries when switching jobs - which is the source of Dr. K's H1B comment). Republicans passed H1B "reform" (see above) in the House, but it went nowhere in the Senate. No doubt, Head Clown Schumer is going to try to do the same thing with immigration, if and when it comes back. It was that unholy alliance between the Democrats wanting to expand their base with millions of illiterate peasants made citizens (and, presumably Democrats), and Republicans beholden to high tech company contributions that was driving it. Unfortunately for them, the Republican base, esp. with the Tea Party, rebelled, most notably with the primary loss of immigration proponent House Majority Leader Cantor.; 1/26/17, 7:56 PM
jg said...: funny. i'm convinced it's wrong not to.

the opinions of congress haven't matched the opinions of citizens on immigration for too long.

i thought the left was supposed to *dislike* crony capitalism's privatized profits on costs paid by the public.; 1/26/17, 9:23 PM
Rusty said...: Luke Lea said...
"An endorsement of which of his immigration policies. From the very get to, in an interview with Chuck Todd on his airplane, Trump promised that whatever he did would be done in "a very humane" way."

There goes my plan to shoot them across the boarder with cannon.
Weeeee!; 1/27/17, 7:38 AM