Immigration and Citizenship: what the public prioritizes and why it is hard to measure

Immigration and Citizenship, one of the ten provisional subjects in My Vote Forward, covers immigration rules, citizenship and related services. In June 2026, 73% of U.S. adults told Gallup that immigration is a good thing for the country, while in March 2025, 32% told Pew Research Center that all immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported.⁠^1,3 Both findings can be true at once, which is why a high priority for immigration tells you that people care, not what they want done.

In plain words

Immigration is about who can come to the United States, who can stay, and who can become a citizen. It touches the border, jobs, taxes, schools, courts, families and safety.

People who rank immigration as a top concern often want very different things. One person wants the border closed. Another wants a neighbor who has lived here for twenty years to be allowed to stay. A third wants more engineers or more farm workers. A fourth wants the asylum system to work faster. All four might put immigration first.

This page explains what surveys show, why they are hard to read, and the strongest arguments on each side. Two companion pages explain who decides and what the evidence shows. All ten subjects are listed on the Subjects hub.

Defined terms

Immigration and Citizenship (as a My Vote Forward subject). Immigration rules, citizenship and related services, as scoped in the demo’s provisional subject list. See Subjects.

Lawful permanent resident (LPR). A noncitizen granted the right to live in the United States permanently, often called a green card holder.

Immediate relatives. Under federal law, “the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States,” with parents counted only when the citizen is at least 21. They are not subject to the annual numerical limits.⁠⁶

Family-sponsored and employment-based preferences. Capped categories of permanent immigration. Federal law sets a family-sponsored floor of 226,000 a year, an employment-based base of 140,000, and 55,000 diversity visas.⁠⁶

Unauthorized immigrant. A foreign-born noncitizen who is not a legal resident. Federal statistics also use the phrase “illegal alien”; advocates often say “undocumented.” The choice of term is itself contested.

Asylum. Protection for a person in the United States who shows persecution, or a well-founded fear of it, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.⁠⁵

Naturalization. The process by which a lawful permanent resident becomes a citizen. See who decides.

Birthright citizenship. Citizenship at birth for persons born on U.S. soil, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

What the public says about immigration and citizenship

Public opinion on immigration and citizenship in the United States is both broadly favorable and sharply divided, depending on the question. Gallup’s June 1 to 15, 2026 telephone survey of 1,001 adults (margin of error ±4 points) found 73% calling immigration a good thing and 21% a bad thing, down from a record 79% in 2025 and above the 25-year average of 67%.⁠¹ Asked whether immigration should be kept at its present level, increased or decreased, 35% chose present level, 31% increased and 29% decreased, down from 55% wanting a decrease in 2024.⁠¹

The same Gallup release reported majority support for paths to citizenship: 81% for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children who meet certain requirements, and 75% for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.⁠¹ Support for hiring significantly more Border Patrol agents fell to 49% in favor and 48% opposed, from 76% in 2024; 58% opposed deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally; and 54% opposed banning sanctuary cities.⁠¹

Views split along party lines. In the same survey, 91% of Democrats, 73% of independents and 50% of Republicans called immigration a good thing.⁠¹ Pew’s February 24 to March 2, 2025 survey of 5,123 adults found 32% saying all immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, 51% saying some should and 16% saying none should; 54% of Republicans and Republican leaners chose “all,” compared with 10% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.⁠³

Salience moves even when attitudes do not. In Gallup’s open-ended “most important problem” question, 14% named immigration in March 2026 and 10% in September 2026; in September, 17% of Republicans, 9% of independents and 4% of Democrats named it.⁠²

Why immigration and citizenship is hard to measure as a priority

Immigration and citizenship is hard to measure as a priority for at least five reasons, each covered in general terms in measurement and question design.

Direction is invisible. A person who ranks immigration first may want more enforcement, more legal admissions, faster asylum decisions, legalization, or all of these. Gallup’s September 2026 data show the subject matters far more to Republicans than to Democrats as a “most important problem”,⁠² but the people who name it are not asked which way they want policy to move.

Answers depend on the frame. A favorable view of immigration in general (73%).⁠¹ coexists with a third of adults favoring deportation of everyone here illegally⁠³ Questions about “immigration,” “illegal immigration,” “legal immigration,” “the border” and “asylum” measure different things.

Words carry positions. The federal statistics office titled its 2024 report “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population,” and its web listing now calls the same series “Estimates of the Illegal Alien Population”.⁠⁸ A survey that picks one term may signal a stance before the respondent answers.

Salience is volatile. The share naming immigration as the top problem moved four points between March and September 2026,⁠² and the share wanting immigration decreased fell from 55% to 29% between 2024 and 2026.⁠¹ A priority recorded in one month can be stale a few months later; see participation over time.

The most affected people are mostly not voters. Noncitizens cannot lawfully vote in federal elections (see who decides). A priority measured among eligible voters therefore excludes most of the people whose legal status is at stake, while including the citizens whose laws are being written. Whether that is a defect or the point depends on one’s view of democratic consent, discussed below.

The real tradeoffs in immigration and citizenship

Immigration and citizenship policy involves tradeoffs in which each gain carries a cost somewhere else. The general logic is in tradeoffs.

Enforcement intensity versus cost and disruption. More arrests, detention and removal can deter unlawful entry and uphold the law, but they cost money, strain courts, and separate families that include U.S. citizens. Fewer removals reduce those costs but can weaken the credibility of the law.

Asylum access versus border control. Federal law lets a person “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” apply for asylum “irrespective of such alien’s status”.⁠⁵ Generous access protects people fleeing persecution; critics argue that slow decisions let weak claims serve as a route to stay. In June 2026 the Supreme Court held that a person standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” until crossing the border,⁠⁹ which shapes where that tradeoff is managed.

Family versus employment selection. In fiscal year 2024, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were 49.3% of the 1,364,090 new lawful permanent residents, while employment-based preferences were 12.5%.⁠⁷ Canada, by contrast, ranks candidates in its Express Entry pool with a points system that scores age, education, official language ability and Canadian work experience.⁠¹⁰ Family priority supports household unity and social ties; skills priority targets labor needs and fiscal contribution.

Levels versus demographics. The Census Bureau reported that natural change (births minus deaths) added about 519,000 people between July 2024 and June 2025, while net international migration added 1.3 million.⁠¹¹ Lower immigration means slower population and labor force growth; higher immigration means faster change in communities and more demand on housing and services.

Who gains and who pays. A 2017 National Academies report found the long-term effect on wages of native-born workers overall “very small,” with negative effects most likely for “prior immigrants” and “native-born high school dropouts,” and found fiscal effects “generally positive at the federal level and negative at the state and local levels”.⁠⁴ National averages can hide concentrated local costs and concentrated group losses.

The strongest arguments across perspectives

The strongest arguments on immigration and citizenship come from several directions. Each is stated here in the form its supporters would recognize.

Border security and the rule of law. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that a law that is not enforced invites more violations, that unlawful entry is unfair to people who wait in line, and that a nation unable to control who enters cannot protect its residents. Critics answer that enforcement alone cannot fix a legal system whose limits and backlogs push people outside it.

Sovereignty and consent of citizens. Many argue that deciding who joins the political community is a core power of self-government. In Arizona v. United States (2012), Justice Scalia wrote that “the authority to exclude was universally accepted as inherent in sovereignty”.⁠¹² Others answer that consent should also weigh long-settled residents who pay taxes and raise citizen children but cannot vote.

Labor market effects for different groups. Supporters of higher immigration point to the National Academies finding of “very small” overall wage effects and a positive impact on long-run growth.⁠⁴ Restrictionists emphasize the same report’s finding that prior immigrants and native-born workers without a high school diploma bear the losses,⁠⁴ and argue that policy should weigh those workers first.

Fiscal effects at different levels. The National Academies found first-generation immigrants “more costly to governments than are the native-born,” while the second generation are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors”.⁠⁴ One side stresses the long-run national gain; the other stresses that state and local governments, which pay for schools, carry the near-term cost.⁠⁴

Humanitarian obligations and asylum. Advocates for refugees and asylum seekers argue that protection from persecution is a legal and moral duty written into U.S. law.⁠⁵ Others agree on the duty but argue that a system overwhelmed by claims fails genuine refugees too, and that orderly processing protects the principle.

Legal immigration levels and selection. Some argue for more total admissions to offset an aging population;⁠¹¹ others for fewer to ease pressure on wages and housing; others for a shift from family to skills, as in Canada’s points model;⁠¹⁰ others for keeping family unity as the core.

The unauthorized population. Pew estimates 14 million unauthorized immigrants in 2023, about 6 million of whom had some protection from deportation, such as asylum, parole, TPS or DACA.⁠¹³ One side argues for legalization of long-settled residents; another argues legalization rewards unlawful entry and encourages more; a middle position ties any legalization to enforcement measures.

Naturalization and civic integration. Some favor faster naturalization to encourage civic participation; others favor stricter testing and longer residence to ensure attachment to constitutional principles. See who decides for the current requirements.

Birthright citizenship as a legal question. In Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026), the Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.⁠¹⁴ The dissents argued that the Clause covers only children who owe full allegiance to the United States, with Justice Alito writing that it confers citizenship “on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country”.⁠¹⁴ The ruling settles current law; the policy debate about whether citizenship should depend on parents’ status continues.

Evidence

Evidence on immigration and citizenship comes from administrative records, residual estimates and surveys, each with known limits. The evidence page reviews admissions, naturalization, border encounters, the unauthorized population, labor market and fiscal research, crime research and the main data disputes. Two points matter most for reading priorities: the federal government last published an official unauthorized population estimate for January 2022,⁠⁸ and the most cited private estimate puts the 2023 figure several million higher,⁠¹³ partly because of rapid change and partly because of definitions.

Competing interpretations

Immigration and citizenship priorities can be read in at least three ways.

As a referendum on enforcement. In this reading, a rise in concern signals demand for border control. The partisan pattern in Gallup’s “most important problem” data supports reading Republican concern this way.⁠²

As a demand for a working system. Here concern reflects frustration with backlogs, long waits and unclear rules, shared by people who want more immigration and people who want less. Gallup’s 2026 finding that large majorities favor paths to citizenship while about half still favor hiring more Border Patrol agents fits this reading.⁠¹

As a values question about membership. Here the debate is mainly about who belongs, which no economic statistic can settle. The birthright citizenship opinions show that even the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” turns on rival accounts of allegiance.⁠¹⁴

These readings are not exclusive. A single respondent can hold all three.

Application to this framework

My Vote Forward’s tools apply to immigration and citizenship as they do to any subject, with limits that matter more here.

1. Priorities. A participant can rank Immigration and Citizenship among the ten subjects. That ranking records importance, not direction. See priorities.
2. Opinions need a proposal. “Immigration” is not a proposal. A useful opinion question names a concrete measure, such as a change to a visa category, an asylum procedure, or a state driver’s license law, and names the body that can adopt it. See proposals and opinions.
3. Authority must match the level. Most immigration law is federal, so a city council or state legislature cannot adopt most immigration proposals. A proposal routed to the wrong level misleads participants. See who decides and jurisdictions.
4. Private voting matters. People in mixed-status households, employers and immigrants who have naturalized may face social pressure on this subject. Opinion sharing stays optional and specific. See private voting.
5. The denominator is eligible voters. The framework concerns eligible voters, and noncitizens are barred from voting in federal elections. Any result describes participating citizens, not the affected population. See representation and measurement.

Unresolved questions

• How should a priority measure distinguish people who want more enforcement from people who want more admissions, without leading either group?
• Should a civic tool about immigration report the views of noncitizen residents separately, given that they are affected but not eligible to vote, or would that blur the line between opinion and electoral power?
• Which term should neutral questions use for people without legal status, when each available term is read as a position?
• How quickly do immigration priorities change after major events, and how often should a priority snapshot be refreshed?
• Can any survey design separate concern about the border from concern about legal immigration levels when many respondents do not distinguish them?