WASHINGTON (AP) — The sudden rise in the number of families and unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border has dramatically redefined America’s yearlong debate on immigration.

Once a debate over how to fix a broken system and provide a path to citizenship for millions, it has now become a race to decide how to increase border patrols and send people back quickly to their country of origin.

While latest developments have refocused attention on immigration, it’s hardly under the terms that President Barack Obama and immigrant advocates once envisioned.

Obama had demanded action on a broad change in the law that would have given millions of immigrants illegally in the United States a way to citizenship while spending more on border security. When Republicans balked, he threatened to act on his own. But now the White House says it’s focused on addressing the influx of border-crossers and returning as many as quickly as the government can.

Republican lawmakers had decided to scuttle any votes on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws this year. Now, they are urging prompt legislative action to stem the flow of Central Americans into the United States. Some Republicans even want Obama to take decisive action himself, a shift from their usual criticism that he has abused his executive powers.

The divisions fall mostly along partisan lines, but the circumstances also have caused some splits among Democrats and led immigration advocates to question Obama’s focus on detention and deportation.

Some questions and answers about how we got to this upended state of affairs.

Q. Haven’t illegal border crossings been dropping?

A. Yes. From 1990 to 2007, apprehensions by the Border Patrol of people crossing illegally averaged nearly 1.17 million a year; some of the highest were from 1998 to 2000. By 2012, they had dropped to nearly 365,000. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. rose from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The number then fell to 11.3 million in 2009 and has remained statistically stable since despite some indications it might be slightly rising.

The lower numbers have been attributed variously to stricter enforcement on the border, the U.S. economic downturn and improved economic conditions in Mexico.

Q. Where is the increase occurring?

A. The influx is largely by families with children or by minors traveling alone. From October 2012 through the end of last September, the Border Patrol apprehended about 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. But between October and the end of this June, the number shot up to 57,000. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress the number is accelerating so fast that it could reach 90,000 by the end of September. Most are coming from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Q. Why the focus on children?

A. In 2008, in the waning days of President George W. Bush’s administration, Congress passed a law designed to protect children from trafficking by gangs and other criminals. It set up a system to help provide humanitarian relief and possible asylum for children who are victims of trafficking and who face continuing threats back home. The system provides a quicker process for children from Mexico and Canada. Under the law, they can be interviewed by a Border Patrol officer, who makes an initial determination whether the child deserves to have his case heard by an immigration judge. If the officer determines the minor is not a victim of trafficking or does not face a credible fear of persecution, the child can be immediately sent back across the border.

The process is different for minors from other countries. They are allowed to make their case directly to an immigration judge; that process can take years amid a backlog of cases. In the meantime, those children remain in the U.S. with family members or with sponsors while they await hearings in the clogged system.

Q. But why such a sudden jump in numbers?

A. Crime, gang violence, poverty across Central America, a desire to reunite with parents or other relatives. White House officials also say smugglers have persuaded families to pay them to bring children to the U.S. by lying to them about their fate in this country.

Republicans are blaming Obama for deciding in 2012 that certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally before 2007 and before they turned 16 could defer their immigration proceedings and be eligible for work authorization. GOP critics say that decision encouraged minors to rush to the U.S. in the belief that they would be allowed to stay, even though they wouldn’t qualify.

Q. How does Obama want to deal with the crisis?

A. Obama sent Congress a request for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to increase the number of Health and Human Services facilities for the minors and to tighten border enforcement. Some money would be used to help Central American countries repatriate border-crossers and expand the number of U.S. immigration judges. Obama has asked for unspecified broader authorities for the Homeland Security Department to more quickly process and deport border-crossers. Johnson, the department’s head, has said he would like the Border Patrol to deal with Central American minors the same way it deals with Mexican unaccompanied minors. The Obama administration is processing the recent arrivals ahead of others in the overwhelmed immigration system in hopes of discouraging more minors from coming.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Barack Obama
• unaccompanied minors
• Central America
• immigration laws
• immigration

WASHINGTON (AP) — The sudden rise in the number of families and unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border has dramatically redefined the nation’s yearlong debate on immigration.

Once a debate over how to fix a broken system and provide a path to citizenship for millions, it has now become a race to decide how to increase border patrols and send people back quickly to their country of origin.

While latest developments have refocused attention on immigration, it’s hardly under the terms that President Barack Obama and immigrant advocates once envisioned.

Obama had demanded action on a broad change in the law that would have given millions of immigrants illegally in the United States a way to citizenship while spending more on border security. When Republicans balked, he threatened to act on his own. But now the White House says it’s focused on addressing the influx of border-crossers and returning as many as quickly as the government can.

Republican lawmakers had decided to scuttle any votes on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws this year. Now, they are urging prompt legislative action to stem the flow of Central Americans into the United States. Some Republicans even want Obama to take decisive action himself, a shift from their usual criticism that he has abused his executive powers.

The divisions fall mostly along partisan lines, but the circumstances also have caused some splits among Democrats and led immigration advocates to question Obama’s focus on detention and deportation.

Some questions and answers about how we got to this upended state of affairs.

Q. Haven’t illegal border crossings been dropping?

A. Yes. From 1990 to 2007, apprehensions by the Border Patrol of people crossing illegally averaged nearly 1.17 million a year; some of the highest were from 1998 to 2000. By 2012, they had dropped to nearly 365,000. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. rose from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The number then fell to 11.3 million in 2009 and has remained statistically stable since despite some indications it might be slightly rising.

The lower numbers have been attributed variously to stricter enforcement on the border, the U.S. economic downturn and improved economic conditions in Mexico.

Q. Where is the increase occurring?

A. The influx is largely by families with children or by minors traveling alone. From October 2012 through the end of last September, the Border Patrol apprehended about 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. But between October and the end of this June, the number shot up to 57,000. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress the number is accelerating so fast that it could reach 90,000 by the end of September. Most are coming from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Q. Why the focus on children?

A. In 2008, in the waning days of President George W. Bush’s administration, Congress passed a law designed to protect children from trafficking by gangs and other criminals. It set up a system to help provide humanitarian relief and possible asylum for children who are victims of trafficking and who face continuing threats back home. The system provides a quicker process for children from Mexico and Canada. Under the law, they can be interviewed by a Border Patrol officer, who makes an initial determination whether the child deserves to have his case heard by an immigration judge. If the officer determines the minor is not a victim of trafficking or does not face a credible fear of persecution, the child can be immediately sent back across the border.

The process is different for minors from other countries. They are allowed to make their case directly to an immigration judge; that process can take years amid a backlog of cases. In the meantime, those children remain in the U.S. with family members or with sponsors while they await hearings in the clogged system.

Q. But why such a sudden jump in numbers?

A. Crime, gang violence, poverty across Central America, a desire to reunite with parents or other relatives. White House officials also say smugglers have persuaded families to pay them to bring children to the U.S. by lying to them about their fate in this country.

Republicans are blaming Obama for deciding in 2012 that certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally before 2007 and before they turned 16 could defer their immigration proceedings and be eligible for work authorization. GOP critics say that decision encouraged minors to rush to the U.S. in the belief that they would be allowed to stay, even though they wouldn’t qualify.

Q. How does Obama want to deal with the crisis?

A. Obama sent Congress a request for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to increase the number of Health and Human Services facilities for the minors and to tighten border enforcement. Some money would be used to help Central American countries repatriate border-crossers and expand the number of U.S. immigration judges. Obama has asked for unspecified broader authorities for the Homeland Security Department to more quickly process and deport border-crossers. Johnson, the department’s head, has said he would like the Border Patrol to deal with Central American minors the same way it deals with Mexican unaccompanied minors. The Obama administration is processing the recent arrivals ahead of others in the overwhelmed immigration system in hopes of discouraging more minors from coming.

Q. What does Congress want to do?

A. Various Republican-driven proposals would change the 2008 law and allow Border Patrol agents to deal with Central American minors in the same way they process Mexican border-crossers. That means they could be turned back immediately if an agent determines the individual has no claim for asylum.

House Republicans have called for sending National Guard troops to the border. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has proposed ending Obama’s 2012 policy of deferring immigration proceedings for those who entered the U.S. as children before 2007. In addition to changing the 2008 law, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, favor an increase in immigration judges and in the number of refugee applications that the U.S. can process inside El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Q. Is there agreement on any of that?

A. Hardly. Administration officials have indicated support for changing the 2008 law, but the White House has not proposed a specific fix amid complaints from advocacy groups. Its position about what it would accept is unclear.

Republicans say Obama’s request for $3.7 billion amounts to a “blank check” and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this past week he wasn’t as optimistic as he would like to be that a deal could be reached before the end of July, before lawmakers go on break. Republicans want to link increased spending to changes in the law. Many Democrats and immigration advocates don’t want changes to the law, saying the Border Patrol screenings currently used on Mexican border-crossers are inadequate and would result in minors returning to gang violence and worse in their home communities.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Barack Obama
• unaccompanied minors

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation’s yearlong deliberation over immigration has taken a head-snapping detour.

What was once a debate over how to fix a broken system and provide a path to citizenship for millions has become a race to decide how to increase border patrols and send people back quickly to their country of origin.

The sudden rise in the number of families and unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border has refocused attention on immigration, but hardly under the terms that President Barack Obama and immigrant advocates once envisioned.

Obama had demanded action on a broad change in the law that would have given millions of immigrants illegally in the United States a way to citizenship while spending more on border security. When Republicans balked, he threatened to act on his own. But now the White House says it’s focused on addressing the influx of border-crossers and returning as many as quickly as the government can.

Republican lawmakers had decided to scuttle any votes on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws this year. Now, they are urging prompt legislative action to stem the flow of Central Americans into the United States. Some Republicans even want Obama to take decisive action himself, a shift from their usual criticism that he has abused his executive powers.

The divisions fall mostly along partisan lines, but the circumstances also have caused some splits among Democrats and led immigration advocates to question Obama’s focus on detention and deportation.

Some questions and answers about how we got to this upended state of affairs.

Q. Haven’t illegal border crossings been dropping?

A. Yes. From 1990 to 2007, apprehensions by the Border Patrol of people crossing illegally averaged nearly 1.17 million a year; some of the highest were from 1998 to 2000. By 2012, they had dropped to nearly 365,000. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. rose from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The number then fell to 11.3 million in 2009 and has remained statistically stable since despite some indications it might be slightly rising.

The lower numbers have been attributed variously to stricter enforcement on the border, the U.S. economic downturn and improved economic conditions in Mexico.

Q. Where is the increase occurring?

A. The influx is largely by families with children or by minors traveling alone. From October 2012 through the end of last September, the Border Patrol apprehended about 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. But between October and the end of this June, the number shot up to 57,000. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress that the number is accelerating so fast that it could reach 90,000 by the end of September. Most are coming from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Q. Why the focus on children?

A. In 2008, in the waning days of President George W. Bush’s administration, Congress passed a law designed to protect children from trafficking by gangs and other criminals. It set up a system to help provide humanitarian relief and possible asylum for children who are victims of trafficking and who face continuing threats back home. The system provides a quicker process for children from Mexico and Canada. Under the law, they can be interviewed by a Border Patrol officer, who makes an initial determination whether the child deserves to have his case heard by an immigration judge. If the officer determines the minor is not a victim of trafficking or does not face a credible fear of persecution, the child can be immediately sent back across the border.

The process is different for minors from other countries. They are allowed to make their case directly to an immigration judge; that process can take years amid a backlog of cases. In the meantime, those children remain in the U.S, with family members or with sponsors while they await hearings in the clogged system.

Q. But why such a sudden jump in numbers?

A. Crime, gang violence, poverty across Central America, a desire to reunite with parents or other relatives. White House officials also say smugglers have persuaded families to pay them to bring children to the U.S. by lying to them about their fate in this country.

Republicans are blaming Obama for deciding in 2012 that certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally before 2007 and before they turned 16 could defer their immigration proceedings and be eligible for work authorization. GOP critics say that decision encouraged minors to rush to the U.S. in the belief that they would be allowed to stay, even though they wouldn’t qualify.

Q. How does Obama want to deal with the crisis?

A. Obama sent Congress a request for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to increase the number of Health and Human Services facilities for the minors and to tighten border enforcement. Some money would be used to help Central American countries repatriate border-crossers and expand the number of U.S. immigration judges. Obama has asked for unspecified broader authorities for the Department of Homeland Security to more quickly process and deport border-crossers. Johnson, the department’s head, has said he would like the Border Patrol to deal with Central American minors the same way it deals with Mexican unaccompanied minors. The Obama administration is processing the recent arrivals ahead of others in the overwhelmed immigration system in hopes of discouraging more minors from coming.

Q. What does Congress want to do?

A. Various Republican-driven proposals would change the 2008 law and allow Border Patrol agents to deal with Central American minors in the same way they process Mexican border-crossers. That means they could be turned back immediately if an agent determines the individual has no claim for asylum.

House Republicans have called for sending National Guard troops to the border. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has proposed ending Obama’s 2012 policy of deferring immigration proceedings for those who entered the U.S. as children before 2007. In addition to changing the 2008 law, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, favor an increase in immigration judges and in the number of refugee applications that the U.S. can process inside El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Q. Is there agreement on any of that?

A. Hardly. Administration officials have indicated support for changing the 2008 law, but the White House has not proposed a specific fix amid complaints from advocacy groups. Its position about what it would accept is unclear.

Republicans say Obama’s request for $3.7 billion amounts to a “blank check” and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this past week he wasn’t as optimistic as he would like to be that a deal could be reached before the end of July, before lawmakers go on break. Republicans want to link increased spending to changes in the law. Many Democrats and immigration advocates don’t want changes to the law, saying the Border Patrol screenings currently used on Mexican border-crossers are inadequate and would result in minors returning to gang violence and worse in their home communities.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Barack Obama
• unaccompanied minors
• immigration

The surge of Central American children crossing the U.S. southern border has shifted the politics of immigration, weakening one of the most potent arguments Democrats plan to make against Republicans in November and in the next presidential election.

In the past month, the number of Americans who rank immigration as the nation’s top problem has tripled in surveys conducted by Gallup — putting the issue on par with the economy and unemployment as the most frequently named issues facing the country.

And this past week, a poll from Pew Research Center found a 5 percentage point drop in support for the Democrats’ long-stalled immigration fix, which would beef up border security while at the same time creating a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million people living in the United States illegally.

That idea remains popular, backed by 68 percent of those polled, having gained support in the past few years as the recession and a surge of Border Patrol agents quieted the border. But Roberto Suro, a former director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said that when the media focuses on trouble at the border, support for such a citizenship effort drops. In the same recent Pew survey, a plurality of Americans said they favor swifter deportations of migrant children and trust Republicans more than Democrats to fix the issue.

“The most potent imagery in immigration politics has been when things are out of control,” said Suro, now a journalism professor at the University of Southern California. “Those three words often spell a turn toward restriction, regardless of what the actual circumstance is.”

The political changes come as alarm rises about the more than 57,000 children who have entered the country since October, many of whom are languishing in makeshift detention facilities as the country’s overwhelmed immigration courts fail to keep pace with the need to provide each child a hearing before a judge as required by a 2008 law.

Supporters of restrictions on immigration are gleeful at the shift, which has happened just weeks after predictions of long-term electoral doom for Republicans in November because of House Speaker John Boehner’s decision not to allow a vote on an immigration overhaul.

Meanwhile, Democrats are fretting about how best to handle the issue and whether to continue to support President Barack Obama’s proposal to speed up deportations of the Central American kids. This past week, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a potential candidate for president in 2016, urged the administration to be more accommodating of the children, but he was later attacked for privately asking the White House not to house the migrants in his state.

“They know this is the sort of thing that can radicalize independents, and a lot of Democrats, frankly,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for more immigration restrictions. “What is the premise of … immigration reform? It’s: ‘Look, we’ve pretty much fixed this (border) problem, let’s tie up our loose ends and move on.’ Well, obviously not.”

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who met with the president last week said he remains resolute, and supporters of an immigration overhaul say long-term political trends back their stance. They argue that Republicans who toughen their rhetoric now could be left with a position that seems too extreme once the immediate problem fades.

“I think there are going to be some ebbs and flows in our conversation, but the American people, when you ask them about what are the basic components of an immigration reform bill, we’ve won that argument,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez.

Still, emboldened Republicans appear unlikely now to grant Obama’s request for $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis, while some, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, want Obama to reverse his action that granted deportation relief to people brought here illegally as children.

Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Lou Barletta, a consistent opponent of creating a path to citizenship for people living in the country illegally, said this week that he felt like a bit of a pariah in his caucus after 2012 elections, which led the Republican National Committee to recommend the party embrace an immigration overhaul. Now, he said, that’s all changed.

“More and more members are wanting to talk to me about it,” Barletta said.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of the immigrant rights group America’s Voice, acknowledged that Republicans have the upper hand at this moment. But he said the polling shifts are largely the result of GOP voters hardening their position on immigration.

Once the public understands the true nature of the problem, he said, the momentum will swing back in favor of an overhaul.

“I know right now it looks like they’re on the front foot and he’s on his back foot,” Sharry said of Republicans and Obama. “I’m not sure it’s going to look the same way come September or October.”

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Follow Nicholas Riccardi on Twitter at: https://www.twitter.com/NickRiccardi/

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Barack Obama
• Pew Research Center
• immigration reform
• immigration

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — The arrest of a prominent immigration activist and former journalist at a Texas airport was a reminder of the latitude that the U.S. Border Patrol has in conducting checkpoints.

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize winner, was detained at the McAllen/Miller International Airport in south Texas this week after being questioned about his citizenship status while visiting the region to attend vigils related to the Central American immigration surge. For many who do not live in border states, the idea of being asked for immigration status while flying within the U.S. seems foreign. Here are some details about why and how the U.S. Border Patrol operates in airports and locations along the country’s border.

WHAT DO BORDER PATROL AGENTS DO AT AIRPORTS?

Border Patrol agents who work at airports within 100 miles of the border are often in plain clothes and work closely with Transportation Security Administration agents to monitor people, even those who are flying within the country. Agents don’t typically have offices within the airport, and the Border Patrol will not say how many agents staff airports at any given time.

But they are there.

They check passports, green cards, and other forms of identification while standing over the shoulder of a TSA agent. Essentially, agents are on the lookout for suspicious behavior such as extreme nervousness or appearing to be lost. If an agent sees that such a person presents a green card but looks nervous, the agent would likely question that person. The agent would ask questions such as where the person’s mother was born and how long it’s been since they entered the country to determine whether the ID they are using is counterfeit.

In the case of Antonio Vargas, Border Patrol agents were standing alongside TSA personnel at the McAllen/Miller International Airport, which is only a few miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, when the activist tried going through. Vargas does not have a government-issued U.S. identification card, and uses a passport issued by his native Philippines. He was arrested after telling an agent that he was in the country illegally. Vargas was released Tuesday on his own recognizance with a notice to appear before an immigration judge.

DOES THE BORDER PATROL OPERATE CHECKPOINTS ON ROADS, TOO?

Yes. The border patrol has dozens of in-land checkpoints around the Southwest and in northern states such as Washington. The checkpoints can be within 100 air miles of the country’s border. They are usually located on highways and small roads. For example, there is a makeshift checkpoint on a two-lane road just outside a small Arizona town called Arivaca, where residents are protesting the border patrol’s presence. The town is 20 miles from the border.

Arivaca residents, regardless of their citizenship and immigration status, must pass through the checkpoint every time they leave town, which is regularly because the town does not have schools or a large grocery store and many residents work outside the town. They are asked whether they are U.S. citizens. The ACLU says the border patrol can only briefly detain travelers, and they cannot use checkpoints for “general crime control.”

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT BORDER PATROL AGENTS DO AT ROAD CHECKPOINTS AND WHAT THEY DO AT AIRPORTS?

Checkpoints are clearly marked. All people who drive through a checkpoint are asked to reveal whether they are U.S. citizens — that is not the case at airports. And while agents at checkpoints are in full uniform, those at airports are more likely to be in plain clothes. One thing they have in common: They use the study of behaviors to determine whether someone might be without legal status or committing a crime. And both are used more as deterrents than they are for catching criminals.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CUSTOMS AGENTS AND BORDER PATROL AGENTS AT AIRPORTS?

A: There are two immigration agencies that operate at airports. One is Customs and Border Protection, which places agents at all international airports. The other is the U.S. Border Patrol, which falls under the umbrella of CBP. Border Patrol agents work mostly in airports that are within 100 miles of the border. Customs agents use an electronic system to determine whether someone is legally allowed to travel into the United States, and they are the agents travelers typically see when they return from overseas trips.

WHAT WOULD LEAD A BORDER AGENT TO DETAIN SOMEONE AT A CHECKPOINT?

A: Border agents must have “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone at airport and road checkpoints. For example, if a driver passed through a checkpoint and said he or she was a U.S. citizen but appeared to be very nervous, an agent could have reasonable suspicion that the person is lying and could question them further. If questions are not answered sufficiently and the person cannot prove his or her legal status, an agent is able to place them under arrest, process them and turn them over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, a separate agency.

Agents often use body language to determine whether someone is acting suspiciously. They’re not allowed to racially profile, but agents often become suspicious if the person they encounter does not speak English or has a thick, non-English accent. Civil rights groups argue that racial profiling at checkpoints is inevitable because there are very few other indicators an agent could use to determine culpability.

___

Follow Astrid Galván on Twitter at —www.twitter.com/astridgalvan

• Immigration Issues
• Politics & Government
• Jose Antonio Vargas

The border crisis involving unaccompanied children has pushed immigration suddenly to the top of the national agenda – and Americans have at least some consensus about what action Congress should take.

Though immigration reform proposals have struggled to find support in the Republican-controlled House, recent opinion polls show substantial support for its core planks. The polls suggest that, despite poisonous political rhetoric over immigration reform, there are bridges of agreement among Americans about the steps that should be taken – and frustration over Congress’s inability to act.

Specifically, the idea of tighter border security has strong majority support. So does the idea of providing for legal status – and possible paths to citizenship – for immigrants now in the US illegally.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?

In a new survey released Thursday, the public also weighs in on the minors who have been flooding across the border this year – the trend that has pushed immigration to the forefront. In the new Pew Research Center poll, a slim majority favors expedited decisions on deportation or asylum for those minors.

Media images of the porous southern border and of a tide of children making the perilous journey from Central America have clearly had an impact on public opinion.

A monthly Gallup poll, released alongside the Pew survey Thursday, finds that Americans’ top national priorities have changed significantly since June. Immigration is named as the No. 1 national problem by 17 percent of respondents, up from 5 percent who said that in June and 3 percent in January – and higher than at any time since 2006.

That puts immigration at the top of the list in Gallup’s new results. It’s not that the economy is no longer a big worry. That issue would still rank as a bigger concern if you lump people who put “economy” first (15 percent of respondents) together with those who say “jobs” or “unemployment” (14 percent). Still, concern about those two categories fell in July even as immigration surged.

Concern about immigration spans all regions, but it was named as the top problem most often in the West (by 24 percent of those polled) and least often in the Midwest (by 13 percent). Some 23 percent of Republicans say it’s the top issue, compared with 16 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats.

On the question of what should be done, the nation still shows longstanding fault lines, with substantial numbers of Americans in both the “no-amnesty” and the “path to citizenship” camps.

A May New York Times poll hints at how immigration is central to a broader debate over America’s character as a nation. It found 54 percent agreeing with the idea that the nation should be “a country with a basic American culture and values that immigrants take on when they come here.”

But another 42 percent favored the ideal of “a country made up of many cultures and values that change as new people come here.”

As divisive as the issue is, public views also point toward some possible consensus solutions.

In the new Pew Research Center poll, for example, 68 percent of Americans support the idea that “immigrants living in the US who meet certain requirements should be allowed to stay in the US legally.” That total included majorities of both major political parties, and of political independents.

Support for legal status has sagged a bit as the border crisis has emerged in the news, however. Among Republicans, only 54 percent in July favored the “allowed to stay” option in the Pew poll, down from 64 percent in February.

For some years now, Americans have supported the general idea of a path to citizenship. As far back as 2006, two-thirds of Americans in a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll supported such a path for illegal immigrants who learn English, pay a fine, and meet other requirements.

Many Americans want a tough-love approach. In a June Gallup poll, 63 percent said immigration is generally “a good thing” for the country, but more said the overall number of immigrants should be decreased (41 percent) than increased (22 percent).

And a Gallup poll last year found 83 percent support for a law “that would tighten US border security and provide the Border Patrol with increased technology, infrastructure and personnel.”

The new Pew poll bores in on the recent influx of minors. It finds 53 percent of Americans saying the legal process for dealing with Central American children who cross the border illegally should be accelerated, even if that means that some children who are eligible for asylum are deported.

Some 38 percent would rather stay with the current policy, even though the process could take a long time and the children will stay in the US in the interim.

Hispanic Americans in the poll were more evenly divided, with 47 percent saying “speed up the process” and 49 percent favoring the current policy.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Immigration Issues
• Politics & Government
• immigration reform