How One Pollster Turned Public Disengagement Into ‘Strong Support’ for Deportation

A Scripps/Ipsos poll reported that “a majority of Americans support mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.” The phrasing dovetails with Donald Trump campaign’s promise that such a deportation is exactly what a second Trump administration would undertake.

Numerous other media outlets (including C-SPAN, CBS News, Reuters, among others) immediately reported on the findings, given their political significance. “Donald Trump’s Mass Deportation Plan Is More Popular Than You Think,” was Newsweek‘s headline.

An examination of the poll questions and results, however, suggest that this measure of “public opinion” can hardly be taken seriously, because most people display a lack of engagement and, perhaps more importantly, understanding of the issue. By exploiting this lack of information, the pollsters create the illusion of strong public support.

Unengaged — but opinionated?

Questions in the poll address several different aspects of immigration, but it’s worth noting this one: “How closely are you following the news on the following topics: The immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border?” Just 23% said “very closely.” Another 36% said “somewhat closely,” and 40% admitted “not very” or “not at all closely.”

In short, a significant portion of the respondents in the poll is unengaged on this issue, while only a quarter is “very” engaged. Yet the poll presents over 90% of its respondents as having meaningful opinions about immigration questions.

Beyond people’s lack of engagement — which suggests that whatever opinions most of them give are not terribly strong — the Scripps/Ipsos poll also shows that the people it polled lack basic knowledge about the policy issue. This is made plain by responses to a question designed to find out how much people knew about responsibilities for immigration Kamala Harris had been assigned as vice president:

If a person is engaged and informed on the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, they surely will know the answer to this question. Yet a mere 10% of the respondents chose the option that comes closest to explaining her responsibilities, which is highlighted in yellow: to address the reasons why migrants leave their home countries for the United States.

Granted, it’s a difficult time to be informed about immigration in this country. A recent KFF poll found that a large majority of adults have heard false information from elected officials or candidates, such as the claim that “immigrants are causing an increase in violent crime in the U.S.” or that “immigrants are taking jobs and causing an increase in unemployment for people born in the U.S.” And many of them — 51% and 44%, respectively — think those false claims are “definitely” or “probably” true. (Both are also key talking points for the Trump campaign, as is the claim that Harris has been in charge of the southern border under Biden.)

The news outlets that are supposed to inform the citizenry about issues of public concern haven’t been much help. A FAIR examination of establishment immigration coverage found it was characterized by “hyperbole about recent migration trends and an inexcusable lack of historical context.”

But rather than take its respondents’ overwhelming inability to answer a factual question about immigration policy as demonstrating a lack of information and understanding, Scripps framed it in its press release as merely another opinion: “Voters couldn’t agree on Harris’ role on immigration policy, with 17% saying they believe she is responsible for securing the U.S.-Mexico border and 20% unsure.”

Masking apathy

Despite the large segment of the polled population that was shown to be disengaged on the immigration issue and the overwhelming number who had no idea what Harris’ responsibilities on immigration were, the poll reported 97% with an opinion on whether there should be a mass deportation of undocumented immigrants:

Of course, people can have opinions even if they have little to no information. But in that case, it’s important to at least give respondents an explicit opportunity to acknowledge they don’t have an opinion. The “forced-choice” question above provides no such explicit option.

And although Scripps characterized the results as showing “strong support” for the proposal — ”Though it has strong support, experts say mass deportation would take herculean effort” was its headline over a write-up of the poll — in fact, as the table illustrates, the results show only 30% with “strong support.”

As I explained in a different article for FAIR, people who indicate that they only “somewhat” support a policy proposal typically admit that they really don’t care one way or the other, that they would not be “upset” if the opposite happened to the position they just expressed. The “somewhat” option allows the unengaged to give an opinion and do their “job” as a respondent, even though they are not committed “strongly” to that view.

The table above shows that approximately half of the poll’s respondents felt strongly about their views — 30% in favor, 23% opposed, with roughly the other half unengaged. Those results probably overstate somewhat the degree of public engagement, but it is much more realistic than the notion that 97% of Americans have a meaningful opinion on immigration policy.

Moreover, even many of those who report feeling “strongly” about it quite likely have no conception of what a “mass deportation” would mean. Instead of asking a vague question to an underengaged and underinformed public, the poll could have examined their understanding of the issue. It could ask respondents what the term means to them, how many immigrants would be involved, what they know about what undocumented immigrants actually do in this country, what impacts they think the deportation of immigrants might have. Asking these kinds of questions, rather than simply polling a campaign slogan, would have more honestly examined what people actually think about the issue.

The fundamental problem with public policy polling by the media is that they really don’t want to tell the truth about the American public, that on most issues, large segments of the public are simply too busy to keep informed and formulate meaningful opinions. Given that media’s prime function is to give the public the information it needs to make informed choices about civic issues, such disengagement is a warning that news outlets are not doing their job adequately.

But rather than take the public disconnect as an impetus to do better, media give us example after example of how “public opinion” polling can give the illusion of a fully engaged and informed public. By now, we should all know better.