Voters Prefer a Humane Approach to Asylum, View Punitive Measures as Ineffective
By Anika Dandekar
President Biden is soon expected to sign a new executive order that would limit the number of asylum seekers who can cross the U.S.-Mexico border. This comes after Senate Republicans blocked the president’s bipartisan border security bill in February and as voters are reporting immigration as one of their top issues going into the November 2024 general election. A Data for Progress poll conducted ahead of Biden’s State of the Union address in March found that immigration is the issue where Trump has the largest trust advantage over Biden.
Earlier this year, Data for Progress polling also found that more than 2 in 3 voters support the U.S. having a system for asylum seekers to legally migrate to the U.S., as well as strong support for increasing government capacity to process asylum cases. New Data for Progress polling finds that a majority of voters prefer a humane approach to asylum over a punitive one, and that these approaches could impact vote preference among Independent and swing state voters.
When asked if lawmakers should take a humane approach to asylum — maintaining migrants' basic needs and civil rights until courts can make asylum decisions — or a punitive approach — using force or detention as consequences for migrants seeking asylum at the border — voters support the humane approach by a +25-point margin. This includes 78% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans. Voters in swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) prefer a humane approach by a +14-point margin.
In a split sample question, half of the respondents were randomly selected and asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports a humane approach to asylum, and the other half were asked about their likelihood to vote for a candidate who supports a punitive approach. The respondents were given the same descriptions of a “humane” or “punitive” approach as in the previous question.
Data for Progress finds enthusiasm for candidates who want to maintain migrants’ rights and backlash toward candidates who want to use force and detention. A majority of voters (52%) who were asked about a humane approach say they are more likely to vote for such a candidate, while a plurality of voters (40%) of voters who were asked about a punitive approach report they are less likely to vote for such a candidate. This trend holds across Democrats, with 74% more likely to vote for a candidate who takes a humane approach and 57% less likely to vote for one who takes a punitive approach, and Independents, with 46% more likely to vote for a candidate who takes a humane approach and 40% less likely to vote for one who takes a punitive approach. Pluralities of swing state voters also follow this pattern: 42% are more likely to vote for a candidate who takes a humane approach and 38% are less likely to vote for one who takes a punitive approach.
Migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border face a complicated process that can include waiting as long as 10 years just to get a court date. Before being given the chance to defend their asylum claim in court, many people are subjected to detention or alternatives to detention, such as the use of ankle monitors or other surveillance.
When asked where migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border should wait for their court date, a plurality of voters (40%) say “in U.S. communities, in shelters or with sponsors,” while only 19% say they should be “held in prisons or detention centers.” Additionally, 7% say they should live in U.S. communities with ankle monitors.
Government contracts to for-profit migrant detention centers have increased dramatically over the past decade, with the vast majority of those in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody being held in private facilities. When informed about the use of privately owned prison facilities to detain migrants seeking asylum, a majority of voters (53%) express disapproval of this practice. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%), a majority of Independents (56%), and more than a third of Republicans (39%) disapprove of the use of private prisons to hold asylum-seeking migrants who are waiting for their court date. A majority of swing state voters (53%) also disapprove of this practice.
After seeing messages from both sides, net disapproval of for-profit migrant detention widens from -15 points to -23 points.
Proponents of harsh border enforcement tactics claim it will deter new migrants from trying to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, but Data for Progress finds voters are not persuaded by that reasoning. A majority of voters (58%) say harsh border enforcement tactics like family separation and indefinite detention are ineffective at preventing new migrants from coming to the border to seek asylum. This includes 66% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans — as well as 58% of voters who live in swing states. Less than a third (32%) of total respondents say these tactics are effective deterrents.
This polling reveals a clear voter preference for a humane approach to asylum seekers over a punitive one. A majority of voters disapprove of harsh border enforcement strategies and for-profit prison facilities, viewing them as ineffective at deterring immigration. This sentiment is pronounced among swing state voters, who are more likely to support candidates advocating for an approach that upholds migrants’ basic needs and civil rights.
Anika Dandekar (@AnikaDandekar) is a senior analyst at Data for Progress.
Survey Methodology
From April 5 to 6, 2024, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,218 U.S. likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
Swing states voters are those in: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.