The elite dissensus

Ross Douthat had a column yesterday about why the parties are moving apart on immigration.  The key passage:  "the cycle started with a gap between the elite consensus on immigration — unabashedly in favor — and the public’s more conflicted attitudes, which differ depending on the day’s headlines and the wording of the polling questions. Across the first 15 years of the 21st century, too many Beltway attempts to simply impose the elite consensus set the stage for backlash, populism, Trump."  Then Trump implemented cruel and ineffective policies, and Democrats reacted against them.  The later part seems right--the Democratic presidential candidates are competing to show how strongly they oppose Trump.  But the part I quoted seems wrong in two ways. 

First, although the public's attitudes are "conflicted" in the sense that they are not straightforwardly pro-immigration or anti-immigration, they are pretty stable.  For example, here is a question from 2011:  "Which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently working in the US (United States)?...They should be allowed to stay in their jobs and to eventually apply for US citizenship. They should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as temporary guest workers but not to apply for US citizenship. They should be required to leave their jobs and leave the US."  44% chose the first option, 26% the second, and 26% the third.  One from December 2014:  "Which of the following comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently in the United States? Should the government...send all illegal immigrants back to their home country, have a guest worker program that allows immigrants to remain in the United States to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and eventually qualify for US citizenship, but only if they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check?"  17% chose the first, 16% the second, and 63% the third.  Here's one from September 2018 "Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the US illegally? The immigration system should allow them a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, allow them to become permanent legal residents, but not citizens, or identify and deport them?"  On this, it was 62%, 16%, and 21%.  That is, about 20 % favor a hard-line policy, maybe a quarter favor letting them stay but not become citizens, and most favor a "path to citizenship."  I think most of the difference between the first question and the other two is that the first one just talks about having jobs, while the others mention other requirements.  That is, there is strong support for citizenship for "worthy" illegal immigrants, and the more "worthy" qualities you specify, the stronger it gets (as much as 89% for "for illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children if they meet certain requirements such as going to college or joining the military, and not having a criminal record?")

Second, on the "elite consensus":  there was a bill in 2013 that provided a path to citizenship, which passed the Senate with a bipartisan majority of 68-32.  But it was never voted on in the House, because the Republican majority objected to it.  That's not because the bill was unpopular with the public--several surveys showed a majority in favor, or in favor if they added "tougher provisions for border security." I haven't found any that showed a majority, or anything close to a majority, in favor of just rejecting it.

There may be a pro-immigration consensus among academic elites, or journalistic elites, but they don't make the laws.  There was not, and is not, anything resembling a consensus among political elites: most Republican elites have taken a position well to the right of the public.  The "populist" revolt was not a response to efforts to impose an elite consensus, but to the division among political elites:  it seemed like there was an agreement, and then it fell apart, so people turned to someone who said that he could cut through the gridlock and make "deals."  Oddly, Douthat got the situation pretty much right in 2010 when, comparing the United States and Europe on climate change, he said "America’s major political parties generally tend to be more responsive to public opinion, and less constrained by elite sentiment, than their counterparts in Europe."  Although with the benefit of hindsight, I would say it's not just that America's major political parties are more responsive to public opinion, but that they are inclined to accentuate any potential division in public opinion.

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]