The Asymmetric Polarization of Immigration Opinion in the United States

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Opinion Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI:10.1093/poq/nfad048
Trent Ollerenshaw, Ashley Jardina
{"title":"The Asymmetric Polarization of Immigration Opinion in the United States","authors":"Trent Ollerenshaw, Ashley Jardina","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we analyze trends in Americans’ immigration attitudes and policy preferences nationally and across partisan and racial/ethnic groups. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Democrats and Republicans shared similarly negative attitudes toward immigrants and high levels of support for restrictionist immigration policies. Beginning in the 2010s and continuing through the early 2020s, however, Democrats’ aggregate immigration opinions liberalized considerably. We observed increasingly liberal immigration preferences among Democrats of all racial and ethnic backgrounds after 2016, but this trend was especially pronounced among white Democrats. Among Republicans, opinion on immigration remained mostly stable over this period, although in some cases it became more conservative (e.g., border security) and more liberal on others (e.g., amnesty). The marked liberalization in immigration opinion among Democrats has left partisans more divided on immigration than at any point since national surveys began consistently measuring immigration opinion in the late twentieth century.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Opinion Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad048","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze trends in Americans’ immigration attitudes and policy preferences nationally and across partisan and racial/ethnic groups. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Democrats and Republicans shared similarly negative attitudes toward immigrants and high levels of support for restrictionist immigration policies. Beginning in the 2010s and continuing through the early 2020s, however, Democrats’ aggregate immigration opinions liberalized considerably. We observed increasingly liberal immigration preferences among Democrats of all racial and ethnic backgrounds after 2016, but this trend was especially pronounced among white Democrats. Among Republicans, opinion on immigration remained mostly stable over this period, although in some cases it became more conservative (e.g., border security) and more liberal on others (e.g., amnesty). The marked liberalization in immigration opinion among Democrats has left partisans more divided on immigration than at any point since national surveys began consistently measuring immigration opinion in the late twentieth century.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国移民意见的不对称两极分化
在本文中,我们分析了美国人的移民态度和政策偏好在全国范围内以及不同党派和种族/民族群体中的趋势。在 20 世纪 90 年代和 21 世纪初,民主党人和共和党人对移民持类似的负面态度,对限制性移民政策的支持率也很高。然而,从 2010 年代开始,一直到 2020 年代初,民主党人的总体移民观点明显自由化。我们观察到,2016 年后,所有种族和民族背景的民主党人的移民倾向越来越自由,但这一趋势在白人民主党人中尤为明显。在共和党人中,移民观点在此期间基本保持稳定,但在某些情况下变得更加保守(如边境安全),而在另一些情况下则更加自由(如大赦)。民主党人移民观点的明显自由化,使得党派成员在移民问题上的分歧比 20 世纪末全国调查开始持续测量移民观点以来的任何时候都要大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Published since 1937, Public Opinion Quarterly is among the most frequently cited journals of its kind. Such interdisciplinary leadership benefits academicians and all social science researchers by providing a trusted source for a wide range of high quality research. POQ selectively publishes important theoretical contributions to opinion and communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of methodological issues involved in survey validity—including questionnaire construction, interviewing and interviewers, sampling strategy, and mode of administration. The theoretical and methodological advances detailed in pages of POQ ensure its importance as a research resource.
期刊最新文献
The Global Crisis of Trust in Elections The Electoral Misinformation Nexus: How News Consumption, Platform Use, and Trust in News Influence Belief in Electoral Misinformation. Where Are the Sore Losers? Competitive Authoritarianism, Incumbent Defeat, and Electoral Trust in Zambia's 2021 Election. The Trump Effect? Right-Wing Populism and Distrust in Voting by Mail in Canada. Trust in the Count: Improving Voter Confidence with Post-election Audits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1