In her CMFA working paper, Carola Binder discusses a new approach for understanding why central bankers are pressured—by both politicians and the public—to deviate from their mandates. Further, Binder argues that this new approach “strengthens the case for limiting monetary policymakers’ discretion by implementing rule-based monetary policy.” To find out more, click the link here.

As you read the paper, let us know your thoughts by emailing your comments and questions to CatoCMFA@​Cato.​org. And if you are interested in submitting your own working paper, please email us at the same address with your paper attached as a word document.

[pdfjs-viewer url=“https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alt‑m.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F04%2FTechnopopulismAndCen…” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=true]

In the wake of Derek Chauvin’s conviction for killing George Floyd, policing reform continues to be debated in Congress, and a bipartisan group of legislators is making progress toward a solution on the key issue of qualified immunity. Last week, Republican Senator Tim Scott proposed, as a possible compromise, the idea of shifting financial responsibility away from individual officers and onto police departments themselves. Though his public statements and news reports don’t provide many details at this point, they seem to suggest a view that qualified immunity should not preclude plaintiffs from recovering damages in civil rights cases, but that only police departments, not individual officers, should be financially liable for such damages.

The fact that Tim Scott—who last year introduced a policing reform bill that did not address qualified immunity at all—is proposing even this much is a sign of just how much progress has been made in these discussions. And at first blush, employer liability sounds like a tempting solution to both the practical and political challenges of qualified immunity: it gives victims of police misconduct the ability to recover damages, while sidestepping the political controversy around suing officers personally when they violate people’s rights.

The problem, however, is that relying solely on employer liability also sidesteps the individualized accountability that civil rights laws like Section 1983 are intended to provide, but which qualified immunity has severely undermined. Employer liability is an important part of the solution, but it must be a supplement to qualified immunity reform, not an alternative to it. In the remainder of this post, I’ll explain in detail several related reasons why employer liability alone would be an ineffective and possibly even counter-productive “compromise” on this issue.

1. Employer liability doesn’t give officers individualized incentives to respect people’s constitutional rights.

Civil rights laws like Section 1983 have both a remedial and a deterrent purpose. Victims whose rights are violated deserve a remedy, but the existence of that remedy is also supposed to deter individual actors from violating people’s rights in the first place. Qualified immunity has sabotaged both of these purposes, but employer liability only addresses the remedial side of this calculus.

If police officers are told, in essence, not just that they’re protected by qualified immunity, but that they can’t be held liable for rights violations at all, that hardly gives them the best incentives to ensure they respect people’s constitutional rights. To the contrary, it could make matters worse. Even if victims have an easier time recovering money damages under an employer-liability-only regime, the total number of rights violations might go up, not down, if the officers who commit these violations are off the hook entirely.

Of course, even today police officers are nearly always indemnified by their employers for settlements or judgments in civil rights cases. Thus, one could argue that employer liability doesn’t undercut individualized incentives any more than our current regime, in which officers almost never pay a penny anyways. This is the argument I understand Billy Binion to be making in his recent article on the subject, in which he quotes Joanna Schwartz to say that “requiring the city to bear the costs of these suits, instead of officers … would make transparent what already happens in over 99 percent of cases.”

But there’s a major difference between some skin in the game, and no skin in the game. Yes, officers are usually indemnified, but indemnification isn’t guaranteed, which means officers must keep in mind that there’s still an outer-bound of misconduct for which they might actually face personal consequences. As Schwartz herself notes, “indemnification statutes aren’t watertight” and “officers can be denied indemnification in some states it they acted ‘maliciously’ or if punitive damages are awarded against them.” Indemnification may somewhat temper individual officer incentives, but an employer-liability-only approach removes those incentives entirely.

Indeed, we don’t have to speculate about whether the possibility of individual liability affects officer incentives—we’re already seeing the evidence of that from state-level qualified immunity reform. In response to the civil rights law passed by the New York City Council at the end of March, the NYPD’s union recently sent a letter to its members, informing them that—in the absence of qualified immunity—officers will now actually have to avoid violating people’s rights.

Here’s the most critical excerpt from this astonishing letter:

As a direct result of the passage of this law, and the unavailability of the defense of qualified immunity under its provisions, we advise that you proceed with caution when taking any police action which could lead to physical engagement with any person, and avoid physical engagement to the greatest extent possible while also assuring your own safety and the safety of others. Also, you are strongly cautioned against engaging in any stop & frisk (unless doing so for your own or others’ safety), search of a car, residence, or person unless you are certain that you are clearly and unequivocally within the bounds of the law .…

“In other words,” as IJ’s Chad Reese explains in an op-ed today, “when you remove qualified immunity, police officers start taking constitutional rights more seriously.”

It is rather stunning to see a police union openly acknowledge that, without qualified immunity reform, officers would not need to “proceed with caution” when using force against citizens, nor worry too much about whether their searches were lawful. It’s likewise stunning to see the law-enforcement lobby so candidly characterize the need for officers to respect people’s rights as a lamentable burden—in the union attorneys’ own words, the possibility of officers being sued for rights violations is “a reality of our job that is made worse by this law and the City’s increasing propensity to decline indemnification to our officers.”

What is not stunning, however, is the common-sense notion that giving people a financial incentive to avoid unlawful behavior deters that behavior. That is a feature, not a bug, of Section 1983, and any reform of qualified immunity must ensure that these incentives are corrected. Employer liability, on its own, does not do that.

2. Employer liability does not remedy how qualified immunity has undermined public trust in police officers.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has turned on the news in the last several years that we are in the midst of a national crisis of confidence in law enforcement. Gallup reported last summer that, for the first time in the history of its polling, a majority of Americans do not have faith in the police. This plummeting confidence is fueled by the fact that police officers are rarely held accountable when they commit misconduct—and that lack of accountability, of course, is largely the product of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity therefore deprives police officers of the public trust and confidence that is necessary for them to do their jobs. As explained in a recent letter by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership: “Trusting relationships between police and civilians are not just a preference; they are a requirement for public safety. Without these relationships, police are left to investigate crimes with little to no help from the people we serve. People have so little trust in us that a majority of violent crimes go unreported, even by victims themselves.” Thus, far from protecting professional police officers, qualified immunity is actually making their jobs harder.

Making police departments liable instead of individual officers doesn’t fix this problem. Yes, employer liability would at least ensure that victims of misconduct would be financially compensated, but civil rights lawsuits aren’t just about money. They also allow people to vindicate their rights by getting formal recognition from the system when a public official has wronged them. There’s a reason the victims of violent crimes care about whether their offenders are criminally convicted, even though a conviction doesn’t put money in their pocket. The same is true of civil rights plaintiffs, even though their cases also involve money damages.

A “solution” to police accountability that makes it impossible to hold officers liable is not just misguided; it’s a step backwards. Public trust in law enforcement is low enough already, and it will hardly help matters to say to the public, “In response to your concerns, we’re actually going to make it impossible to hold officers liable for rights violations—but don’t worry, you, the taxpayer will now be on the hook financially for their misconduct!” We owe it to both the victims of police misconduct and to professional, rights-respecting officers to find a solution that helps restore public trust in the police, not one that will create even more animosity.

3. Shared liability between officers and police departments is better than employer liability only.

As I mentioned above, I absolutely agree that making police departments liable is a crucial component of policing reform. After all, most officers will lack the resources to cover the entirety of a major judgment against them, and it’s perverse to deny compensation to victims only in those cases where the misconduct is so severe that indemnification might be denied. I recognize and share Schwartz’s concern that “[g]overnment attorneys use the threat that they will deny officers indemnification strategically, to negotiate lower settlements, avoid punitive damages awards, or reduce jury verdicts after trial.”

But employer liability should be created in addition to individual liability, not instead of it. The New York City law, for example, makes individual officers liable for Fourth Amendment violations (and clarifies that qualified immunity is not a defense), but it also provides that “[t]he employer of a covered individual … is liable, based upon the conduct of such covered individual.” In other words, the individual officer and the department share liability for rights violations committed by that officer.

A similar shared-liability regime could easily be enacted at the federal level, and its benefits are numerous. It guarantees that victims of misconduct will always get a complete remedy. It provides accountability for individual officers while still recognizing that employers will generally be the ones paying for the bulk of any judgments. And, perhaps most importantly, it both permits and incentivizes states and localities to experiment with better alternatives to our present indemnification regime.

For example, in June 2020 Colorado enacted qualified immunity reform that (1) allows individuals to sue officers who violate their constitutional rights, without qualified immunity; (2) presumptively guarantees full indemnification by the officer’s employer; but (3) if the department determines the officer “did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief” that their conduct was lawful, makes the officer personally responsible for a small portion of the judgment (5% or $25,000, whichever is less). In other words, it gives officers skin in the game, but to a degree they could reasonably be expected to cover.

If Congress created shared liability between officers and departments, it would effectively leave to states and localities the choice about how best to apportion responsibility. Some would presumably adopt Colorado-style caps on officer contribution, whether by statute or by contract. Some might employ a system where departments fund individual officer liability insurance, as both Cato and Professor Deborah Ramirez have suggested. And, if a particular jurisdiction truly wanted to avoid individual liability entirely, they could do that too, simply by guaranteeing—as New Mexico recently did—that public employers are always responsible for the entire judgment. Over time, we’d be able to see which approaches were more and less successful, and the better ones would spread.

But if Congress mandates, at the federal level, that it is only police departments that can ever be liable, it will undercut all of these efforts. After all, there’s no use—and indeed, no real possibility—of experimenting with officer contribution or insurance proposals when officers can’t be liable in the first place. Shared liability at the federal level is the approach to policing reform that will best allow us to see the virtues of federalism in action; employer-liability-only would impose a single ineffective and stagnant solution on the entire country.

* * *

There are several policymakers, scholars, and activists who are deeply committed to the problem of police accountability and have advocated in good faith for an employer-liability model. As I’ve mentioned several times, I agree wholeheartedly that employer liability is an essential part of a solution. But I hope this post has helped explain why it’s not a sufficient solution.

This is not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There’s absolutely room to discuss compromise solutions to qualified immunity that would reform the doctrine without abolishing it entirely. Congress could, for example, adopt something akin to the bill introduced by Republican Senator Mike Braun in the last Congress, which would have eliminated the “clearly established law” standard but replaced it with good-faith safe harbors for individuals relying on state law or judicial precedent. In the specific context of policing, Congress could even consider a defense for officers relying in good faith on department policy, so long as the department itself was still liable.

But a “compromise” on qualified immunity that ignores individual liability entirely should be a non-starter for anyone serious about policing reform. We are in the midst of a national crisis of confidence in law enforcement, and that crisis is fueled by a lack of meaningful accountability. It would be perverse and counter-productive to try to remedy that crisis by making it harder than it already is to hold officers accountable for violating people’s constitutional rights.

In the closing days of the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was relaxing the so-called “X waiver” for physicians wishing to prescribe buprenorphine as Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for substance use disorder, as an emergency action to address the worsening drug overdose rate. The action only applied to physicians and limited them to 30 patients at any given time. I lauded this as a step in the right direction, though not large enough. Unfortunately, in February, the Biden Administration rescinded the order.

Yesterday the Secretary of HHS announced new guidelines that will again suspend the “X waiver” requirement for physicians treating up to 30 patients within their states. It goes a step further by also permitting physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse midwives to use buprenorphine for MAT as well, without having to go through the ordeal of qualifying for an “X waiver” on their narcotics prescribing license from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Providers who wish to take on more than 30 patients must go through the onerous waiver process.

This improves upon the January 2021 Trump Administration action by extending the exemption beyond physicians to include other health care practitioners.

A 2020 study by Harvard researchers showed MAT with either buprenorphine (provided in its abuse‐​deterrent form Suboxone) or methadone as the only treatments for opioid use disorder that are associated with reduced overdoses or “opioid‐​related morbidity.” The study compared the effectiveness buprenorphine and methadone with naltrexone, inpatient treatment programs, and intensive outpatient treatment programs.

The American Medical Association, the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and many addiction specialists have called for eliminating the X waiver program entirely.

There was bipartisan support in the last Congress for legislation that would eliminate the X waiver requirement for health care practitioners prescribing buprenorphine for MAT. Hopefully this Congress will seize the momentum from the new HHS guidance and end the “X waiver” program for good.

President Biden’s infrastructure plan is a mess of contradictions. It promises to increase America’s competitiveness and “create millions of good jobs,” but it would be funded by a corporate tax increase that would do the opposite. The plan would provide large corporate subsidies, even though leading Democrats often complain about corporate subsidies.

Perhaps the most striking contradiction in Biden’s plan is that it is supposed to combat climate change, but the plan’s $2 trillion in taxpayer funding is not green. The green way to fund infrastructure is through user charges that restrain consumer demand. But Biden’s plan relies on income taxes to pay for infrastructure subsidies, and that approach does not moderate consumption or reduce resource use.

If water systems need upgrades, for example, they should be funded by increases in water charges to limit water use and benefit the environment. In the same way, gas taxes are a good way to fund highways because they restrain automobile use and passenger charges are a good way to fund airports because they restrain airline use. Well-structured user charges can also reduce congestion.

Biden would subsidize the upgrades to water systems, highways, airports, and other facilities, rather than relying on green and efficient user charges. In his infrastructure plan, the president mentions climate change 20 times and the environment 14 times, but the plan is entirely funded in a non-green manner.

The table shows some of Biden’s proposed non-green infrastructure subsidies and the preferred green funding approach.

Other commentary on Biden’s infrastructure plan here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

There is a growing movement of conservatives who have only one strong policy opinion: They embrace whatever positions make liberals, progressives, and Democrats mad. Colloquially, this is known as “owning the libs” and conservatives who embrace it express it through trolling and the adoption of possibly earnest beliefs merely in opposition to those held by left-wingers. It is a far cry from the other intellectual movements of conservatism inspired by Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, and the fusionism of the mid-to-late 20^th century that blended portions of libertarianism, traditionalism, anti-communism, and neo-conservatism. To be clear, not all conservatives ascribe to the “own the libs” ideology, but it certainly appears to be more common than it used to be.

According to a recent Cato survey, 47 percent of Democrats want to increase immigration while only 11 percent of Republicans want to. Bumping up Republican approval would have a big effect on overall support for immigration liberalization that stands around 30 percent. If “owning the libs” is the number one policy concern of many American conservatives, pro-immigration policy analysts could use that insight to help convince some of them to be more supportive of freer immigration policies. The following is a tongue-in-cheek blog post about how liberalizing immigration would “own the libs” in several ways that would appeal to this cohort of conservatives.

The first is by showing them that demographics are not destiny. For decades, liberals have been operating under the assumption that long-term demographic trends would give the Democratic Party a huge structural political advantage and something like a permanent majority as the country becomes increasing diverse due to immigration. Tucker Carlson embraced this theory recently and Ann Coulter has been crowing about it for years. In 2020, President Trump improved his showing amongst Hispanics by 4 percentage points and Asians by 7 percentage points relative to 2016. Trump’s support was a lot less than the 40 percent of Hispanic votes that George W. Bush earned in 2004, but the improvement was noticeable. Evidence of the continued assimilation of immigrants and their descendants through ethnic attrition and other means shows up in some surprising places. For instance, Hispanic voters whose parents were both born in the United States favor Republicans by a 10-point margin (47 percent to 37 percent). Showing liberals that non-white voters can support Republicans in increasing numbers will certainly “own” some lefties.

Immigrants will also diminish the power of American unions. There is a strong negative relationship between immigration and union density over American history (Figure 1). Further undermining American unionization through immigration liberalization will really put “the libs” in a bind. Potentially related to unionization, the growth in federal outlays also slows when immigration is liberalized partly because Americans don’t want immigrants to receive welfare. There’s even evidence that more diversity reduces support for welfare. It would be hard for liberals to choose between a larger welfare state and freer immigration, but many would choose welfare. Hard choices would probably result in some shedding of some progressive tears.

Immigrants are more socially conservative than native-born Americans on most measures, more anti-abortion or pro-life, and there’s a real sense that immigrants are skeptical of modern social justice movements that revolve around ethnic and racial identity. Even worse for left-wingers, immigrants are at least as patriotic as native-born Americans and more patriotic than self-described liberals. The top three reasons given by immigrants for coming to the United States are for economic opportunity, freedom, and to be with their families – all values more identified with conservatives. In addition, immigrants consume less welfare, economically assimilate well into American society, and are more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans.

This blog post is meant as a tongue-in-cheek to appeal to a certain cohort of modern conservatives who oppose immigration merely because liberals support it. However, liberalizing immigration would likely undermine or slow the attainment of many left-wing political, economic, and social goals. Immigrants and their children assimilate to American norms quite rapidly so any way in which immigrants might differ from Americans will likely be short lived, but probably not short lived enough to cause some liberal tears to flow.

53% Say Ability to Immigrate Is a “Human Right,” 53% Oppose Immigrant Households Receiving Welfare

The Cato Institute 2021 Immigration and Identity National Survey, a new national survey of 2,600 U.S. adults, finds that nearly three-fourths (72%) of Americans believe immigrants come to the United States to “find jobs and improve their lives” while 27% think immigrants come to obtain government services and welfare.

READ THE FULL SURVEY REPORT HERE

Support for More Immigration Is on the Rise

Support for more immigration has tripled from the mid-1990s when about 10% of the public supported more immigration and two-thirds wanted less. Today 29% of Americans want more, 38% want to maintain current levels, and 33% want less.

Democrats’ views largely account for this shift. Starting around 2008–2010, Democratic support for more immigration rose from about 20% to 47% today.

70% of Democrats Say Racist Beliefs Drive Desire for Less Immigration

Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats say racist beliefs drive the desire for less immigration. In contrast 57% of all Americans, as well as 60% of independents and 88% of Republicans say a sincere interest in controlling the country’s borders is the reason.

91% of Americans Welcome Immigration to the U.S., 9% Want to Shut Down the Border

Only 9% of Americans want zero immigration into the United States today. Instead, 91% welcome immigration, including 68% who favor a “low level” and 23% who prefer a “high level” of immigration.

53% Say Ability to Immigrate Is a Human Right, But Few Want Fully Open Borders

53% of Americans believe that the “ability to immigrate to a new country is a human right for all people.” Democrats (72%) and libertarians (55%) are more likely than independents (45%) and Republicans (33%) to agree. At the same time, only 33% of the public favors removing “all restrictions on immigration” after the pandemic is over. Strong liberals stand out with 72% who favor open borders, while 54% of moderate liberals and 82% of conservatives oppose.

67% of Americans Believe the Legal Immigration Process Is “Fairly Difficult”

More than two-thirds (67%) think that the American immigration process is “fairly difficult” and support a number of reforms:

• 66% say businesses should not be required to give preference to American-born workers, but be allowed to hire whoever is most qualified regardless of nationality
• 63% support creating a new immigration visa for entrepreneurs
• 62% say businesses should be allowed to hire as many migrant workers as needed to fill vacant jobs, such as in agriculture, farming and construction
• 52% think the immigration process should be faster
• 86% oppose the immigration system giving priority to U.S. relatives: 58% say high-skilled and U.S. relatives should be given equal preference, and 28% prioritize high-skilled workers first

54% of Democrats Say Immigration Policy Should Prioritize What Helps the Most People Regardless of Nationality

Most (63%) say that immigration policy should prioritize the interests of the U.S. and its current citizens. However, 54% of Democrats say that it should do what benefits the most people regardless of nationality, while 85% of Republicans say U.S. interests should come first.

59% of Republicans Say Voting on Immigration Levels and Origins Should Be Up to Voters

Less than half (47%) think voters should be able to vote on “how many immigrants are allowed to move to the United States each year and from which countries.” A majority (53%) say this “shouldn’t be up to voters.” Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republicans say citizens should be able to directly vote on immigration levels and origins. However, two-thirds (65%) of Democrats disagree. Independents are evenly divided.

56% Say Simplifying the Legal Immigration Process is the Better Approach to Illegal Immigration

Americans say the better solution to illegal immigration is simplifying the legal immigration process (56%); fewer think increasing border security and building a border wall is the better approach (43%).

Confidence in the government’s ability to control who immigrates to the U.S. may contribute to these views: 72% of those who think the government has at least moderate control over immigration think simplifying the legal immigration process is a better solution to illegal immigration. But 67% of those who think the government has little or no control over immigration favor building a wall and increasing border security.

55% Support a Pathway to Citizenship for Unauthorized Immigrants

A majority (55%) also favor a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the country, 18% favor legal residency without citizenship, 24% would deport all unauthorized immigrants, and 4% would do nothing.

68% of Strong Liberals Say It is “Acceptable” to Illegally Immigrate to the U.S.

Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans say it is “unacceptable” for people to illegally immigrate to the U.S., although most (56%) support making the legal immigration process easier and 55% support providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented who are already here.

Strong liberals stand out, however, with 68% who say that illegal immigration is “acceptable.” This question divides Democrats. A majority (55%) of moderate liberals (as well as 84% of strong conservatives) disagree and say it is “unacceptable.”

58% of Republicans Support Stripping Citizenship of U.S.-Born Children of Undocumented Parents

When it comes to U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants: 61% favor granting automatic citizenship and 64% favor allowing them to attend U.S. public schools. Republicans stand out, however: 58% support stripping citizenship from U.S.-born children of undocumented parents and 58% oppose them attending U.S. public schools. Democrats oppose stripping citizenship (83%) and favor allowing the children to attend public schools (85%).

58% Support Increasing Immigration with Tighter Restrictions on Government Assistance

A majority of Americans believe that most immigrants (57%) or immigrant households (54%) receive some form of means-tested government assistance. However, a majority (58%) of Americans (including 73% of Republicans and 47% of Democrats) would favor increasing immigration if immigrants proved before entering that they would not use such assistance.

53% Oppose Allowing Immigrants to Receive Government Financial Assistance

Most Americans (53%) oppose allowing immigrants to receive welfare services, including 78% of Republicans and 58% of independents, while 70% of Democrats favor.

How Americans Feel Toward Immigrants

Americans differ in their perceptions of immigrants. When asked which best described how they feel about immigrants in the United States, 6% think of immigrants primarily as “family,” 19% as “friends,” 41% as “neighbors,” 21% as “guests,” 7% as “intruders,” and 6% as “invaders.”

Immigration Expanders are more likely than immigration Restrictionists to think of immigrants as “family” (11% vs. 3%), “friends” (31% vs. 8%), and “neighbors” (43% vs. 32%). Expanders are less likely than Restrictionists to think of immigrants as “guests” (9% vs. 29%), “intruders” (3% vs. 14%), or “invaders” (2% vs. 13%). While few (6%) Americans think of immigrants as “invaders,” one group stands out: among those who want to decrease immigration “a lot,” nearly a quarter (23%) think of immigrants primarily as “invaders.”

Liberals and Conservatives View Immigrants Unfavorably if they Join the Opposing Party

Fully 87% of strong liberals and 75% of liberals have favorable opinions of immigrants who join the Democratic Party. However, liberals turn against immigrants if they join the Republican party: 58% of strong liberals and 49% of liberals have unfavorable views of such immigrants. In a similar fashion, 67% of strong conservatives and 58% of conservatives have favorable views of immigrants who register as Republicans. However, conservatives turn even more strongly against immigrants if they register as Democrats: 72% of strong conservatives and 55% of conservatives have unfavorable views of Democratic immigrants.

Most Believe Immigration Benefits the United States

The public believes that immigration brings many benefits to the U.S.:

• 69% say immigration over time contributes to more economic growth
• 61% say immigration enriches American culture and values
• 58% say immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents
• 49% say immigration increases diversity of thought
• 48% agree the U.S. needs immigration to remain competitive in the global economy
• 48% say immigration enriches U.S. culture with new customs and food
• 46% say immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial and start businesses

However, despite these many benefits 42% of Americans say immigration has been “mostly good” and 42% say immigration has been “equally good and bad” for the country; 16% say it’s been mostly bad. The survey documented fears some Americans have about immigration:

• 59% worry immigration could lead to too many demands on government services
• 55% of white respondents think discrimination against white Americans could happen over time
• 55% worry immigration could lead to less social cohesion and national unity
• 51% worry immigration over time could reduce jobs available
• 51% believe that unauthorized immigrants vote in elections
• 47% worry immigration increases the risk of terrorism a lot or somewhat
• 41% of white Americans worry immigration will cause them to become a minority in the U.S.
• 34% worry immigration reduces wages

Most Favor a “Melting Pot of Cultures”

Majorities of Republicans (80%), Democrats (65%), first-generation immigrants (72%), second-generation immigrants (63%), and the third generation and higher (71%) favor a “melting pot of cultures” rather than immigrants maintaining distinct cultures in the U.S.

This may explain why most (59%) favor a country with an “essential American culture” that immigrants adopt when they arrive, while 41% favor a country comprised of many cultures and values that change as new people arrive. However, this question divides partisans. Majorities of Republicans (83%) and independents (56%) prefer a country with an essential American culture, while Democrats (60%) prefer a country comprising many different cultures.

Nearly three-fourths (74%) of first-generation immigrants say most people who have immigrated to the U.S. over the past 20 years have mostly adopted essential American culture rather than retained their own cultures. However, about half of second-generation immigrants, and 53% of the third generation and higher believe immigrants have mostly retained their own cultures and values rather than adopting essential American culture.

What Do People Think It Means to Be an American?

In order to understand what Americans mean when they say they want immigrants to assimilate into the larger society, the survey asked respondents how important it is to them for immigrants to do the following things:

Majorities of Americans say it is either “extremely” or “very” important to them that immigrants (1) be loyal to Americans and the United States (71%), (2) be self-reliant (69%), and (3) speak English fluently (53%).

Democrats and Republicans disagree about assimilation preferences. Across the board, more Republicans think each of these factors is more important compared to Democrats.

Many Americans Prefer Neighbors Similar to Themselves

The survey investigated the extent to which immigration attitudes are shaped by neighborhood preferences. The characteristics that Americans are most likely to say they care a “great deal” about having in common with their neighbors are language (45%), values and sentiments (34%), customs and habits (28%), holidays (22%), political values (21%), religious beliefs (16%), and race or ethnicity (11%).

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to greatly prefer having similar neighbors that speak their same language (62% vs. 32%), share their values and sentiments (44% vs. 28%), customs and habits (38% vs. 22%), and holidays (32% vs. 16%). Partisan differences nearly evaporate, however, when including the share who say they care at least “a little” or “somewhat” about these things.

Similarly, those who want to restrict immigration are more likely than those who want to increase it to greatly prefer neighbors who speak their same language (69% vs. 24%), share their values and sentiments (48% vs. 26%), customs and habits (44% vs. 19%), and celebrate the same holidays (33% vs. 16%).

58% of Strong Liberals See Themselves as Global Citizens

About a quarter (28%) of Americans view themselves more as a “global citizen than as a citizen of the United States,” and 58% of strong liberals agree. In contrast, 71% of strong conservatives view themselves first as U.S. citizens.

A novel thought experiment asked respondents if they felt a closer attachment to a stranger living in Wyoming or France. Democrats feel an equal connection to both (57%), while Republicans feel a stronger connection to the American stranger (70%).

Immigrants are Patriotic Despite More Experiences of Being Treated Like Outsiders

Eighty-two percent (82%) of Americans say they are patriotic, including 45% who feel “very patriotic” and 37% who feel “somewhat patriotic.” Majorities of Democrats (74%), Republicans (94%), first-generation immigrants (74%), second-generation immigrants (68%), and the third generation and higher (85%) all agree. But intensity varies. Republicans (67%) are more than twice as likely than Democrats (29%) to say they are very patriotic. First- (33%) and second-generation (29%) immigrants are somewhat less likely than the third generation and higher (49%) to feel very patriotic.

An overwhelming majority (80%) of immigrants say they feel grateful to be Americans. They say this despite being more likely to report experiences of being treated like an outsider. For instance, first-generation immigrants are more likely than the third generation and higher to say that others frequently or occasionally presumed they were not American (51% vs. 10%), confused them for a store employee where they didn’t work (45% vs. 31%), called them racial slurs (39% vs. 20%), or made negative comments about the food they ate (40% vs. 20%).

Most Immigrants Come for Economic Opportunity

Most first- and second-generation immigrants say their families came to the U.S. for economic opportunities (53%) and freedom (29%). Nearly half (46%) say their families came fleeing persecution of some kind, including political (20%), religious (12%), or general violence (17%). Others came to attend U.S. colleges or K‑12 public schools (27%), be with family (20%), and 8% came for welfare benefits.

69% of Republicans Support Deporting an Immigrant Who Thinks Americans Are Racist

A majority (54%) of Americans say that an immigrant legally residing in the U.S. who “disliked America and said Americans are racist” should be deported, while 46% oppose. Republicans (69%) and independents (52%) agree, while Democrats oppose (57%).

Immigrants and Non-Immigrants Oppose Larger Government if it Requires High Taxes

Mentioning tax rates diminishes the gap between immigrants and non-immigrants when it comes to the size and scope of government. Without mentioning taxes, about two-thirds of first- (64%) and second-generation (69%) immigrants and 51% of the third generation and higher favor “larger government providing more services.” However, if providing these additional services requires higher taxes, then 50% of first-generation, 51% of second-generation, and 61% of the third generation and higher prefer a smaller government offering fewer services and low taxes.

Support for Socialism Slides in Later Generations

First-generation immigrants hold favorable attitudes of both capitalism (63%) and socialism (60%). However, support for socialism slides among the second generation (49%) and third generation and higher (39%). In contrast, support for capitalism remains fairly high among the second generation (58%) and the third generation and higher (64%).

Majorities of Americans across immigration backgrounds (about 6 in 10), Republicans (81%), and independents (65%) believe the free market gives people a fair chance rather than exploits the marginalized. Democrats stand out, with a majority (55%) who feel the free market survives through exploitation.

Methodology

The Cato Institute 2021 Immigration and Identity National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online March 5 to 15, 2021 from a national sample of 2,600 Americans 18 years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.21 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

The topline questionnaire, full methodology, and report of the survey findings can be found here.