Last month, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt published a provocative column highlighting the largest surge of immigration in U.S. history, during the Biden administration. Although experts disagree about what caused this uptick, updated Census estimates later confirmed the immigration figures. Leonhardt argued that the increase in numbers might explain the souring of immigration attitudes in the United States. This theory aligns with a common view that reducing the scale of immigration flows – both legal and illegal – will ease public concerns.
But will Donald Trump’s promises to crack down on immigration – and Jan. 20 executive orders – actually achieve that goal? Research suggests there is no simple political answer to “how much immigration is too much.” People care about immigration not just because of some abstract numbers like border encounters or share of the foreign-born population. They care about it because of their sociotropic concerns about what’s good for their country in terms of whether immigration is orderly, integrated, and contributes to the economy. Whether Trump’s attempts to reduce immigration prove politically beneficial will also depend on whether Republicans manage to keep it a central focus of their messaging.
The correlation between immigration levels and backlash is limited
Research has found that the likelihood of public backlash to immigration has little correlation with how many people are actually emigrating to a country. For instance, smaller inflows, like the recent increase in humanitarian migrants in New York City or the infamous 2001 Tampa affair in Australia, have sparked significant controversy. Yet governments were able to manage much larger shocks, such as the 1980 Mariel boatlift or the migration of over 1 million to Israel as the Soviet Union dissolved in the early 1990s, with relatively little public uproar.
Research indeed shows that increases in immigration numbers are linked to people viewing immigration as a more important issue. But it’s impossible to predict where or when public attitudes will turn negative, or if immigration will become politicized based on migration stock or flow data alone. The arrival of millions of Ukrainian refugees in the European Union – one of history’s largest migration inflows – has faced surprisingly little resistance, showing that public responses hinge more on political will than numbers.
Immigration concerns stem from mismanagement
Instead, research suggests that public attitudes hinge on whether people think the government has a well-managed immigration policy.
Mismanagement of immigration is common – and often exacerbates, if not creates, immigration challenges. For instance, large-scale unauthorized migration frequently increases as a direct result of restrictive policies that limit legal pathways, despite labor market demands. Similarly, other regulations – such as those on housing construction – compound these issues by constraining communities’ ability to accommodate newcomers.
When immigration appears chaotic or unnecessarily cruel, these news stories amplify public backlash and undermine confidence in the government’s ability to manage immigration. It doesn’t matter whether the administration is conservative or liberal. For example, during Trump’s first term, the family separation policy drew overwhelmingly negative media coverage and public disapproval, fueling perceptions that the government was mismanaging immigration and the U.S. border. Similarly, the Biden administration faced criticism for the lack of an orderly and transparent processing system amid the large uptick of asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border.
At the same time, countries like Canada appear to have more orderly and selective immigration systems. Canada has generally enjoyed broader public support for higher levels of immigration, including for asylum seekers. This demonstrates that perceptions of good management backed up by effective policies on the ground can mitigate backlash on immigration, even with relatively high immigration levels.
Why people in areas with few immigrants are concerned about immigration
And it’s not just whether people feel like immigration is affecting their lives directly.
Most research in public opinion agrees that voters care about immigration even when they are not personally affected. One reason is that when immigration is already a part of the national debate, it can become a salient issue anywhere, even far from immigrant hubs. What drives this focus on immigration, exactly? The key is voters’ focus on how they perceive their government is handling immigration more generally.
Political observers are frequently puzzled by why voters – and their elected officials – in areas with few immigrants, far from the border, are deeply invested in this issue. Besides compositional differences—such as rural voters tending to have less formal education, which predisposes them to oppose immigration – political scientists often attribute this to a lack of contact with immigrants, coupled with right-wing misinformation.
While these explanations hold some truth, they overlook a larger driver of people’s attitudes: sociotropic concerns. Whether for better or worse, voters increasingly tend to care about big national issues that go beyond their immediate surroundings. Such concerns about how national leaders are managing immigration mean that the issue can resonate deeply even in places where immigrants are scarce, and have little direct local impact. Divisive rhetoric by politicians and pundits can further amplify these concerns, making immigration a politically salient issue regardless of local circumstances.
What this means for U.S. immigration politics
Many voters increasingly distrust Democrats and other left-of-center parties on immigration. When asked why, they often cite unpopular positions such as decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings. As longtime activists Cecilia Muñoz and Frank Sharry note, immigration has become a “losing issue for Democrats” because progressive advocates have pushed policies beyond the bounds of political viability. Crucially, Muñoz and Sharry argue, this dissatisfaction stems from both the reality and perceptions of chaos and disorder – but not from high immigration levels per se.
Republicans and other right-of-center parties, however, cannot assume they will always have the upper hand. Mismanaged immigration flows during any administration can be equally damaging politically. We saw this unfold in the United Kingdom in the post-Brexit period. And we are now witnessing the ongoing Republican internal party fight about H-1B skilled visas, a legal pathway that accounts for only a small fraction of the foreign-born population in the United States.
Ultimately, research shows that all political parties could benefit electorally by treating immigration like any other public policy issue – ensuring their policies deliver broad benefits and align with public opinion.
Alex Kustov is a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.