Public Opinion vs. Public Policy: The Immigration Divide Narrows

A Political Issue That Shifted the Conversation

It is no secret that our politics is increasingly reduced to a battle to determine which party’s base will prevail when public policy is determined and implemented. However, every once in a while, there is an issue where public opinion shifts basic policy, resulting in the side in control modifying its position, hoping to incur as little deterioration within their base as possible. What has happened in the matter of dealing with illegal immigration is one of these instances.

When the votes were cast in 2024, any real analysis would conclude several things were true. First, Americans believed the Biden-Harris Administration failed miserably on this issue, allowing essentially open borders. Second, they wanted action to tighten our southern border that included removing illegal immigrants, especially those who committed crimes before and/or after entering the country. Third, among those who wanted change, Donald Trump had a solid margin.

ChatGPT summarizes by saying:
Voters were broadly dissatisfied with the Biden–Harris record,
Large majorities thought the border situation was too permissive,
Most voters wanted stronger enforcement,
Majorities supported deportations at least for criminal illegal immigrants, and
Voters favoring tougher immigration policies broke overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.

The Administration’s Initial Immigration Approach

So, against this backdrop, the Trump Administration pursued a policy that indeed did give priority to those here illegally who had already been convicted of crimes in their home country and/or when here, as well as those accused of committing serious crimes, but not yet convicted. At the same time, there was a wider effort focused on mass deportations. Here is where things start to get tricky.

Aside from the predictable political pushback from progressive politicians and their supporters in the Unholy Trinity (academia, legacy media, and the world of entertainment), support among the public for removing those convicted of crimes was overwhelming. At first, the jump ball was focused on those accused, but not convicted. Despite there being no previous precedent, suddenly, there was a cry that these individuals deserved “their day in court.” Again, progressives behaved predictably, going to court over the removals, stirring controversy. The public was okay with them being removed. So, save for the progressive echo chamber, Americans were fine with this focused and limited approach.

When Public Perception Changed

Those in positions of authority advocating for mass deportation went about their business in a fashion that essentially was to “hunt” for illegal immigrants where illegal immigrants were. Suddenly, this started to look and feel as though all of this was a “round ‘em up, and send them home” exercise that removed people, whose only crime is their crossing the border illegally.” There is little to be gained at this juncture arguing the idea of “pick and choose” which laws get obeyed might not be a good approach, that the choice should be to enforce the law or change it. We are talking about the connection between public opinion and public policy. Politics is the bridge that connects—the art of the possible. You try to pick fights you can win.

The mass deportation contingent within the Administration had a tin ear about how their tactics were being perceived. The public turned on the Administration’s overall immigration policy based on video evidence that individuals outside the progressive world thought exposed actions they did not approve of. The political advantage the Trump Administration had on the topic of illegal immigration took a real hit.

A Strategic Political Recalibration

It says here that the Administration, looking at the political situation, made the decision to get rid of or sideline the hardline proponents of mass deportation. No need to take my word on it. DHS Secretary Noem vacated her job, smart enough to exit as gracefully as possible. Not so for ex-Trump Border Patrol Chief, Michael Bovino. On Megan Kelly’s podcast, he recently decried the exits taking place at DHS, including his own. He argued the recent resignation of top Border Patrol official Michael Banks was another stake in the heart of the hardliners. You know what? Bovino is absolutely right. And, that, boys and girls, is how public opinion impacts public policy.

Strictly, as a matter of politics, it would appear the return to an approach that is focused and limited in nature concerning enforcement has not damaged President Trump and Republicans as a whole to any extent with the base. Sure, some conservative platforms have complained, but the base remains solidly with President Trump. Getting the issue mostly off the news and out of the headlines has stopped erosion among other voters who are not part of the progressive political base. In other words, the advantage for Trump on immigration has been restored.

Ronald Reagan’s Lesson on Leadership and Public Opinion

Remember this: Ronald Reagan, once again, had it dead on the mark. It is not about leadership as much as it is about followership. You cannot prevail in the battle for public opinion when the public opposes what you are seeking to impose. Yes, there have been times when a party in control could just bull their way through in the face of public opposition. It would appear 2026 is not one of those times. By definition, that limits what this Administration can hope to do. Recognizing that reality is good politics.