As we approach the presidential election, immigration policy continues to spark politically divisive debate that is most often driven by candidates themselves, even though it doesn’t necessarily reflect the will of the voters.
It doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have to be this way. Incendiary messages and regressive fearmongering from politicians are deeply problematic and only serve to increase very real dangers for thousands of people across the country. Yet political leaders still call for policies that would tear apart families, deny asylum to those who need it, and undermine our country’s commitment to protect people seeking refuge from human rights violations.
At this critical moment for our democracy, candidates are searching for messages that will resonate with their constituents, with some actively weaponizing immigration, an issue that impacts thousands of people across the country and here in New Jersey -- where one in four people are immigrants, and even more have at least one immigrant parent.
The dangerous rhetoric we’ve seen has already led to rising xenophobia, harmful policies, and threats of violence. To combat these dangers, we have a responsibility to hold political leaders accountable for their words and for their actions, and that starts by transforming the discourse surrounding immigration with data-driven change.
At the ACLU, we work to protect and advance immigrants’ rights. Earlier this year, we surveyed voters of all political affiliations in eight congressional battleground districts across Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, with additional studies in Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The findings illuminated a clear gap between what candidates are projecting and the solutions that voters want.
Our research shows that to resonate with voters, candidates across the ideological spectrum should adopt a more balanced approach when speaking about immigration reform. Some notable insights include:
- 65% of voters in the battleground congressional districts -- which includes New Jersey’s 7th District -- agree we need a balanced approach to immigration, even over arguments that it may be costly or dangerous.
- 71% of voters agree that our existing immigration system is broken, and that we need to create a fair and humane immigration system that provides a pathway to citizenship.
- 75% of voters agree that policies that target families and children seeking safety do not make our communities safer.
The data is clear: A balanced approach to immigration policy wins with voters regardless of party affiliation.
Our findings show that when candidates use messages that focus on the contributions of immigrants and our country’s need to provide a fair, efficient, and humane process at the border, they perform better against candidates of the same party that use tough-on-immigration messaging.
Candidates have a moral obligation, backed by this data, to disrupt harmful narratives on immigration, not perpetuate them. Moreover, these findings serve as an important reminder that our policies should be driven by data rather than divisive rhetoric, especially if elected officials expect to make meaningful connections with voters during this election season.
The ACLU-NJ will continue to hold elected officials accountable for their rhetoric and their actions in the months leading up to Election Day and beyond. We’re calling on candidates to make purposeful choices in how they speak about immigration policy, relying on these findings, to ensure discussions revolve around fair and humane solutions. Doing so will win more constituents, but most importantly remains the right thing to do.
And in that vein, we’ll share a valuable reminder for all candidates running for office: Fundamental constitutional protections apply to every single person in the United States regardless of identity, national origin, or immigration status.
This piece was originally published in The Star-Ledger.
