Week Ending April 1
This week in immigration: New polls continue to show that Americans support policies that allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S.; a new study provides data on the economic losses states blocking immigration executive actions would face if the policies are blocked; and more editorials this week show support for executive actions on immigration.
Multiple polls show strong support for immigrants, immigration reform: A number of polls were released this week, all pointing to positive feelings towards immigrants and comprehensive immigration reform by the American public. A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute finds that half of Americans believe newcomers from other countries strengthen American society, as opposed to just 34% who say immigrants threaten American values. Additionally, more than six in ten (62%) Americans say immigrants who are currently living here illegally should be allowed a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. This sentiment is consistent across the political spectrum, as 52 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Democrats agree with the idea of a pathway to citizenship. A poll released by Pew Research Center echoes these findings. Elsewhere, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times statewide poll found that over 75% of voters believe immigrants who are already here should be allowed to stay, with 65% believing immigrants should be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.
CAP shows cost of blocking administrative relief: A new Center for American Progress (CAP) report shows the economic cost to the plaintiffs of United States v. Texas if the 26 states currently suing the Obama Administration win the lawsuit. Together, the 26 states stand to lose an estimated $91.9 billion in increased state GDP over 10 years if the three deferred action initiatives are not fully implemented. This would amount to nearly $272 million in lost tax revenue annually. Residents of the plaintiff states will suffer as well, with an estimated $48.4 billion in increased earnings lost by upholding the injunctions currently in place.
More editorials in support of administrative relief: In what has become commonplace in this newsletter, media outlets and thought leaders continue to express support for the President’s administrative relief. This week, the Seattle Times editorial board expressed support for administrative relief. Additionally, immigration attorney David Leopold called the amicus brief filed by the plaintiffs “politically motivated and filled with confusion and obfuscation.” Leopold goes on to write that the arguments made by the state of Texas create “confusion… about what the immigration law says and, specifically, between the concept of ‘lawful status’ and ‘lawful presence.’”