
Immigrants Are Embracing Trump's Crackdown on Immigration
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
New data shows a growing number of immigrant voters are backing Donald Trump and his hardline immigration agenda—marking a dramatic reversal from past elections.
Why It Matters
The Trump administration has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history and has conducted numerous ICE raids, some of which have swept up people with proper documentation.
Trump's aggressive stance on immigration has resulted in widespread protests, especially in Los Angeles, where Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after reported violence against law enforcement, specifically ICE agents carrying out deportation raids in the city.
But despite the unrest, data suggests that Trump's messaging on border enforcement and immigration control may be resonating with segments of the immigrant community.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event to sign a bill blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025,...
President Donald Trump speaks during an event to sign a bill blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. More
Alex Brandon/AP
What To Know
According to an analysis of the American National Election Studies (ANES) by CNN's Harry Enten, immigrant voters, who favored Democrats by 32 points on immigration policy in 2020, now trust Republicans more on the issue by 8 points—a staggering 40-point swing.
Trump's share of the immigrant vote has steadily increased—from 36 percent in 2016 to 39 percent in 2020 and now to 47 percent in 2024, based on Cooperative Election Study (CES) data analyzed by Enten.
Perhaps even more telling is how immigrant voters feel about immigrants who are in the country illegally. In 2020, their net favorability stood at +23 points. This year that has flipped to -6—a 29-point decline in support for undocumented immigrants among immigrants themselves. Enten did not specify which demographics were included in his aggregate.
It comes as polls suggest that Trump's hardline immigration stance is resonating with much of the public. In a sharp turnaround from his first term, Trump now holds a net positive approval rating on immigration, rising from -21 in June 2017 to +1 today, according to CNN's Harry Enten—his biggest gain on any issue.
A YouGov/CBS News poll conducted June 4-6 found 54 percent of Americans support Trump's deportation program targeting undocumented immigrants, surpassing his ratings on the economy (42 percent) and inflation (39 percent). Additionally, 51 percent approve of ICE conducting searches.
An RMG Research poll echoed that result, with 58 percent backing the deportation efforts. And in an Insider Advantage survey, 59 percent approved of Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to the protests.
But the support has limits. Some polls show that Trump's handling of deportations is broadly unpopular. A survey conducted by YouGov/Economist found that just 39 percent of respondents approve of how the former president is managing deportations, while 50 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of minus 11. A separate Quinnipiac poll showed even deeper dissatisfaction, with 40 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval—netting a negative 16-point rating on the issue.
Meanwhile, 56 percent disapprove of how Trump's mass deportation program is being implemented, according to the CBS/YouGov poll. A separate YouGov survey found only 39 percent approve of the administration's overall approach to deportations, while 50 percent disapprove.
The issue remains deeply polarizing as 93 percent of Republicans support the deportation plan, compared to just 18 percent of Democrats. Independents are divided. Nearly half of Americans believe Trump is going further than he promised during his campaign.
His military deployment is even more controversial. A June 9-10 YouGov poll found only 34 percent of Americans support sending Marines to Los Angeles, while 47 percent disapprove. A majority—56 percent—say state and local governments, not the federal government, should handle the situation.
But among immigrant voters, Trump's immigration policy appears to be resonating.
Experts say that immigrants are increasingly backing Donald Trump's hardline immigration stance due to frustration over what they see as a broken and unfair system.
Thomas Gift, a political science professor at University College London, told Newsweek that many immigrants feel betrayed by current immigration policies, especially ones created under President Joe Biden. "Part of this shift likely stems from frustration among immigrants who feel they 'followed the rules' and now resent those who entered the country unlawfully," Gift explained.
Jeremy Beck, co-president of the immigration reduction group NumbersUSA, told Newsweek that more immigrants came to the U.S. between 2021 and 2025 than during any other period in history—"more than half of them illegally."
Between 2021 and 2024, there were over 10.8 million total illegal border encounters, according to the Department of Homeland Security, far exceeding the 2.8 million total from 2017–2020.
That surge, he said, has spurred a backlash even among immigrant voters who helped form Trump's "winning coalition in November." These voters, he added, sent a "decisive message" to Washington: "Manage immigration at levels we can sustain, and credibly enforce the limits."
The shift is also visible in the broader electorate. Beck pointed to Latino-majority districts in Texas and Colorado where Trump or immigration hardliners performed strongly. Trump made historic gains among Hispanic voters in 2024, with only 55 percent supporting Kamala Harris to Trump's 43 percent—an 8-point increase from 2020 and the highest percentage for a Republican presidential candidate since such data has been tracked.
Beck concluded that Trump's "willingness to enforce immigration laws gives him a clear advantage" with voters—especially immigrants who went through the legal process. "After the border crisis, voters are aware of how important it is to manage immigration policy in the national interest," he said.
But Maria Cristina Garcia, Professor of American Studies at Cornell University, cautioned against drawing broad conclusions from polling on immigrant views toward immigration enforcement and support for Donald Trump. "This poll as represented here in the video doesn't really tell me much," she said, emphasizing that Latino and immigrant communities are far from monolithic.
Garcia argued that attitudes on immigration vary significantly depending on national origin, geography, and personal history. "People of Mexican ancestry who live in border counties along the Rio Grande... are likely more hawkish on immigration than, say, a Dominican American in Washington Heights in NYC," she explained. Similarly, Cuban Americans differ in outlook depending on when and why they migrated to the U.S.
But she noted that economic conditions strongly influence immigration attitudes, which could explain their support for Trump: "Historically, U.S. citizens (including the foreign-born) have been more likely to demand bars to immigration when the economy sputters and they experience more pressure on their day-to-day lives."
Gift echoed this, explaining that, like other Americans, immigrants are feeling the economic pressure from illegal immigration, including "stresses on public services, housing shortages, and rising competition in certain labor markets."
Beck, meanwhile, noted that immigrants are often the first to feel the impact of mass migration: "They tend to work in the same occupations. They feel the downward pressure on their wages, and witness the degradation of workplace conditions for themselves as well as new arrivals."
According to a 2024 report, approximately 36 percent of immigrants lived in lower-income households, compared to 29 percent of U.S.-born individuals. And a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) indicates that 43 percent of immigrants anticipate their financial situation will worsen in the coming year, compared to approximately 33 percent of U.S.-born individuals.
Trump has sought to attribute economic pressures like this to illegal immigration. During a June 2024 presidential debate, Trump claimed that illegal immigrants were "taking Black jobs" and argued they were "killing" working opportunities for minority communities.
"His big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he's allowed to come in... They're taking Black jobs now... and they're taking Hispanic jobs," he said.
And in a March 2025 speech to Congress, Trump blamed "open-border" policies for causing widespread strain—implying economic stress on hospitals, schools, and communities, which often correlates with inflation concerns.
"Joe Biden didn't just open our borders—he flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals and communities," he said.
For Beck, this is why immigration resonates so strongly with immigrant voters grappling with economic anxiety.
"The party that can set enforceable limits on immigration that serve the interests of immigrant voters could achieve a lasting realignment," he said.
What People Are Saying
Enten said: "There is no bloc of voters that shifted more to the right from 2020 to 2024 than immigrant voters."
Thomas Gift said: "Part of this shift likely stems from frustration among immigrants who feel they "followed the rules" and now resent those who entered the country unlawfully or are seen as having bypassed the legal process. Like other Americans, immigrants themselves are affected by many of the same perceived challenges associated with illegal immigration, such as stresses on public services, housing shortages, and rising competition in certain labor markets. These numbers show just how far Biden's alleged "open border policies" have shifted immigrants toward supporting the Republican Party."
Maria Cristina said: "This poll as represented here in the video doesn't really tell me much, though.
"Let's say these pollsters just focused on Latinos who are foreign-born citizens. You're likely to find differences across Latino groups and geographic regions. People of Mexican ancestry who live in border counties along the Rio Grande, for example, are likely more hawkish on immigration than, say, a Dominican American in Washington Heights in NYC. A Cuban American who arrived in the 1960s and has no family left in Cuba might be more hawkish than a Cuban-born US citizen who arrived in 1996 and hopes to one day sponsor a family member. The more interesting question (to me) is why are some groups more hawkish than others? What is it about their experience that has led them to hold certain perspectives?
"For many foreign-born citizens (like all citizens in general), perspectives on immigration are tied to the state of the economy. Historically, US citizens (including the foreign-born) have been more likely to demand bars to immigration when the economy sputters and they experience more pressure on their day-to-day lives.
"As for why some immigrants voted for Trump...again, much depends on the group. Immigrants that fled a communist country, for example, might believe the MAGA-GOP's falsehood that Democrats are socialists or communists and worry about it. Or they might worry about the culture wars and feel that the Democratic party disregards their more religious or patriarchal values. There are many different reasons for the shift to the GOP. If so, voting GOP doesn't necessarily mean they liked Trump. Indeed, I'd like to see a polling question of GOP voters on whether they actually liked Trump."
"But in the end, immigrants are most concerned about the economy and the opportunities they believe will be available to them."
Jeremy Beck said: "Those are remarkable findings, although not entirely surprising. Whenever immigration levels spike, recent immigrants are among the first Americans to feel the impact. They tend to work in the same occupations. They feel the downward pressure on their wages, and witness the degradation of workplace conditions for themselves as well as new arrivals. They see the exploitation. They live in communities overwhelmed by unsustainable numbers. Mass immigration's strain on infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and homeless shelters affects foreign-born citizens directly and indirectly.
"More people came to the U.S. between 2021-2025 than in any other period in history; more than half of them illegally. The shift in immigrant voters is part of a broader shift in American voters who live off of their wages as opposed to their stock portfolios. These immigrant voters were part of Trump's winning coalition in November and they delivered a decisive message to Washington, D.C. last November: Manage immigration at levels we can sustain, and credibly enforce the limits. Enten's polling should not be surprising to anyone who remembers the shift toward Trump in majority-Latino districts in South Texas. Or in Colorado's 8th district, which is 40 percent Latino, where two candidates campaigned on who was tougher on immigration enforcement. The border crisis was tied with inflation for the top reason voters did not vote for Vice President Harris; and thirty six percent of Latino voters cited immigration as a top concern. One out of four Democratic voters believe the Party deliberately open the border. President Trump willingness to enforce immigration laws gives him a clear advantage with these voters. Many immigrant voters who themselves work through a sometimes difficult legal process understandably rejected policies that led to a crisis in which millions of people who should not have been admitted to the U.S. were released into the country outside of the legal system established by Congress.
"After the border crisis, voters are aware of how important it is to manage immigration policy in the national interest. The party that voters trust to fully enforce the law within the limits of the law has an advantage. The party that can set enforceable limits on immigration that serve the interests of immigrant voters could achieve a lasting realignment."
What Happens Next
Trump's approval rating among immigrant voters is likely to fluctuate.
Meanwhile, coordinated nationwide protests against Trump and his administration's policies are also planned to take place in cities in all 50 states on the president's birthday on June 14.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Very Different Anniversary Celebration
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. As tanks roll through Washington today to mark the U.S. Army's 250th birthday—and the 79th birthday of President Donald Trump—Europe is commemorating a different anniversary, not with combat vehicles but with a passenger liner moored near a riverbank. Dignitaries from across Europe are gathering in Schengen, a riparian village in Luxembourg, to celebrate the creation of an international agreement to abolish controls at their countries' common borders. The agreement, signed on June 14, 1985, turned the little-known village into a landmark of European integration; today, Schengen is synonymous with the experiment the agreement spawned—an area of borderless travel that has grown to encompass 29 nations and more than 450 million people. The anniversary celebration in Schengen features artifacts of the treaty-making process, including the MS Princesse Marie-Astrid, the refurbished cruise ship where diplomats from the five original signatory states—France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands—convened on the Moselle River to dismantle border controls. Their aims were practical: The Schengen Agreement was intended to make life more convenient for people—to send a message to workers and vacationers to 'pass, pass, pass,' as one of the signers told me during research for my book about Schengen. 'In principle, you can pass; and we presume that you're honest.' [Read: What Europe fears] But the agreement took on greater symbolic meaning. Schengen embodied the values of liberal internationalism that were ascendant at the so-called end of history, fulfilling the promise of a community of nations where people, goods, capital, and information all would circulate freely. If the Abrams tank is the key symbol of American military might on display today in Washington, the passenger ship anchored in Schengen showcases a very different vision of the international order, one premised on mobility, connection, and cross-border exchange—on the right 'to travel, to migrate, to circulate, to receive and be received,' as one Senegalese migrant in Paris put it in the years after Schengen's founding. Of course, both visions are legacies of the defeat of fascism and the end of the Cold War: a strong United States that vanquished enemies of freedom, a peaceful Europe where erstwhile adversaries worked to eradicate borders that once stood as battle lines. For a time, these visions coexisted. Now they seem to be coming apart. That's all too clear in the contempt that senior members of the Trump administration have expressed for longtime allies; the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, called Europe 'PATHETIC' in a private chat on the Signal messaging app. It's also clear in the administration's escalating crackdown on immigration, and in the deployment of Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles. The vision of free movement animating Schengen is not one shared by Stephen Miller, to say the least. But Schengen is a peculiar creation, in a way befitting our disorienting times. As I explore in my book, the agreement hardly envisioned unrestricted mobility. Instead, it paired the free movement of European citizens with the exclusion of unwanted outsiders, termed 'undesirable' and ranked according to the level of risk they posed to Europe. The agreement assigned participating nations new responsibilities to police the Schengen Area's borders. And it gave them the authority to reintroduce internal controls in the event of a serious threat to 'public policy' or national security. [T. H. Breen: Trump's un-American parade] Nations have done so repeatedly over the past decade, since Europe was jolted by the arrival of an estimated 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015. A series of deadly terrorist attacks added to the impetus to crack down. Unrelenting emergencies over the past five years—the coronavirus pandemic, Russia's war in Ukraine, and spasms of violence in the Middle East—have put still more pressure on European states to step up border checks. Recently, Germany vowed to maintain controls at all nine of its land borders, citing 'high levels of irregular migration and migrant smuggling,' as well as the country's strained asylum system and the 'global security situation.' The Netherlands closed its borders in part because of the 'pressure on public services' from an influx of migrants and asylum seekers. Multiple Nordic countries, meanwhile, point to the threat of Russian sabotage, among other destabilizing cross-border activities, to justify renewed border checks. Yet 40 years on, the Schengen Agreement is so interwoven into the fabric of European life that nations no longer have the resources or logistical capabilities necessary to seal their borders. There are border checks, at least in some places, but moves to reintroduce controls on a large scale have been mostly symbolic. And for all the opposition to mass migration, which has fueled far-right politics on both sides of the Atlantic, the free movement of people and goods remains one of the European Union's most popular policies. Perhaps that reflects Schengen's origins as an innovation designed to improve everyday life, not a show of force or revolutionary transformation. Or perhaps it reveals that values of peace and pluralism are still deeply held by large parts of Western society. Both, in fact, define the view of Robert Goebbels, who, as Luxembourg's delegate to the negotiations 40 years ago, helped draft the agreement and chose Schengen as the site of the signing ceremony. I wrote to Goebbels, who has since gone on to serve as a government minister and then a member of the European Parliament, on the eve of today's twin anniversary celebrations. Schengen, he told me, is a 'peace project,' binding nations once engaged in bloody conflict and 'offering liberties and well-being to 450 million Europeans.' Trump, meanwhile, 'celebrates himself.' Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's where 'No Kings' protests are happening around Indiana today
"No Kings" protests will be happening across Indiana on Saturday, June 14. It's the same day a massive military parade is set to take to the streets of Washington in an elaborate showcase of troops, tanks, weapons and aircraft. The parade, estimated to cost $40 million, coincides with both the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. In response to the extravagantly costly display, a mobilization of "No Kings" protests have been organized nationwide. Here's what you should know. The protest organizer's website describes "No Kings" as a "nationwide day of defiance" in response to Trump and the military parade, saying, "we're taking action to reject authoritarianism." With an emphasis on nonviolent activism, the website outlines the movement's broad appeal, "from city blocks to small towns," and makes a promise to battle Trump's "ego" in a fight for democracy. "On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't – to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings," the website reads. Downtown protests: Up to 1,000 protest ICE outside Pacers-Thunder finals game in Indianapolis Story continues after photo gallery. There are over 30 protests planned across the state of Indiana; only a few of them are listed below. Visit the website to find the closest one to you. The times of June 14 protests scheduled in Indiana can be found below. Exact locations and further details can be found after signing up on the "No Kings" website. Indianapolis: Noon-3 p.m. ET Albion: Noon-1 p.m. ET Angola: 10-11 a.m. ET Auburn: 1:30-2:30 p.m. ET Bedford: Noon-2 p.m. ET Bloomington: Noon-3 p.m. ET Brookville: 11 a.m.-2 p.m. ET Columbus: 1-4 p.m. ET Connersville: Noon-3 p.m. ET Corydon: Noon-2 p.m. ET Crown Point: Noon-2 p.m. CT Decatur: 1-2 p.m. ET Evansville: 1-3 p.m. CT Fort Wayne: 2-5 p.m. ET Kentland: Noon-2 p.m. CT Knox: Noon-2 p.m. Kokomo: Noon-1 p.m. ET Lafayette: 10 a.m.-1 p.m. ET Lagrange: 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. ET Liberty: 1-3 p.m. ET Logansport: Noon-1 p.m. ET Madison: 10 a.m.-noon ET Michigan City: Noon-2 p.m. CT Muncie: 10-11:30 a.m. ET Nashville: Noon-2 p.m. ET New Albany: 10 a.m.-3 p.m. ET Richmond: 12:30-2:30 p.m. ET Salem: Noon-2 p.m. ET South Bend: 1-3 p.m. ET Terre Haute: 10 a.m.-noon ET Vincennes: 2-4 p.m. ET Wabash: Noon-2 p.m. ET Warsaw: 2:30-6:30 p.m. ET Kathryn Palmer, Cybele Mayes-Osterman, and Tom Vanden Brook contributed to this article. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Where are No Kings protests in Indiana? Find one near you
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US warship arrives in Australia ahead of war games, summit
By Kirsty Needham SYDNEY (Reuters) -A key U.S. warship arrived in Australia on Saturday ahead of joint war games and the first summit between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and President Donald Trump, which is expected to be dominated by military issues. The America, the U.S. Navy's lead amphibious assault ship in the Indo-Pacific, entered Sydney Harbour as the first of three ships in a strike group carrying 2,500 sailors and marines, submarine-hunting helicopters and F-35B fighter jets. More than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries have begun to arrive in Australia for Talisman Sabre, the largest Australian-U.S. war-fighting exercise. It will start next month and span 6,500 km (4,000 miles), from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast. The commander of the America, Rear Admiral Tom Shultz, said exercising in Australia was critical for the U.S. Navy's readiness, while the Australian fleet commander, Rear Admiral Chris Smith, said the "trust and robust nature" of the bilateral relationship allowed the two allies to deal with change. "The diversity of how we view the world is actually a real great strength in our alliance," Smith told reporters, adding that Australia also had strong relationships with nations across the region. Albanese and Trump are expected to meet on the sidelines of a summit in Canada of the Group of Seven economic powers, which starts on Sunday. Washington's request for Canberra to raise defence spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product from 2% is expected to dominate the discussion. The Pentagon said this week it was reviewing its AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership with Australia and Britain. Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Saturday this was "not a surprise", adding the two countries continued to work closely. But Michael Green, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, said it was unusual for the review into AUKUS to be conducted solely by the Pentagon and that Trump might link it to the spending request or to tariffs. "It is unusual to make the review unilateral and public right before a summit, even if the Australian side knew. That is not good alliance management - it jams the Australian side," said Green, president of the United States Studies Centre in Sydney. Support for AUKUS in the Congress and U.S. Navy is considerable, however, and the review is unlikely to result in the submarine program being cancelled, he said. India will participate for the first time in Talisman Sabre, along with a large contingent from Europe, said the exercise's director, Brigadier Damian Hill. Australia, Singapore, the U.S. and Japan will hold large-scale live firings of rocket and missile systems, he said. "It is the first time we are firing HIMARs in Australia, and our air defence capability will work alongside the United States Patriot systems for the first time, and that is really important," Hill added.