Californians see undocumented immigrants as essential to economy, poll finds
In contrast to the anti-immigrant rhetoric emanating from the White House, the survey of 800 California voters portrays a populace that values the contributions of immigrants, regardless of legal status, and believes their well-being is intertwined with a well-functioning state.
Californians 'understand what a vital role immigrants play in ensuring that we all have a quality of life, and they want to make sure the basic fundamental services like access to healthcare get maintained for everyone,' said Miguel Santana, president and executive officer of the California Community Foundation, which commissioned the survey in partnership with other foundations across the state.
The poll found that more than two-thirds of respondents support allowing all state residents to purchase health insurance through Covered California, regardless of immigration status. Currently, unauthorized immigrants are not eligible to buy a plan through the state's health insurance marketplace.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 64%, support offering food assistance to all eligible low-income families, regardless of the parents' immigration status. Currently, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for California's food stamp program, but they can apply for assistance on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
The survey also found that 57% of respondents support continuing to allow all eligible low-income residents to access medical care through Medi-Cal, the state's public health insurance program for the poor, regardless of their immigration status.
Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants. That expansion is being blamed, in part, for Medi-Cal costs ballooning well above the original budget estimate.
As part of the nonpartisan survey, San Francisco-based David Binder Research interviewed voters by cellphone, landline and online, in English and Spanish, between March 19 and 24. Of the respondents, 47% identified as Democrats and 28% identified as Republicans, generally reflecting the California electorate.
The research revealed that even moderate and swing voters in California see undocumented immigrants as essential to the economy, and are worried about the economic fallout from Trump's pledge to carry out mass deportations, said pollster David Binder. Participants expressed concerns that raids targeting farmworkers will drive up grocery prices and that wide-scale deportations will decimate small businesses and make it more expensive to build houses.
'They're worried that mass deportations are going to cause disruptions in their daily routine,' said Binder, whose research firm also does polling for Democratic candidates. 'They'll say, 'I'm really nervous about this, because it may end up costing me and my family.''
That sentiment underscores a broader truth in the Golden State: Immigrants are critical to the economy in California, where about 10.6 million people — or 27% of all residents — were foreign-born as of 2023. That's the highest share of any state and more than double the share in the rest of the country, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. About 1.8 million immigrants living in California — roughly 17% — were undocumented in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center.
Unauthorized immigrants accounted for an estimated 7% of the state's workforce in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center, with some sectors deeply reliant on this workforce. At least half of the estimated 255,700 farmworkers in California are undocumented, according to UC Merced Research.
The California survey struck a different tone than several national polls that have found the American public is generally supportive of the Trump administration's get-tough immigration policies. A March CBS News/YouGov poll, for example, found 58% of Americans approve of the administration's program to deport immigrants who are in the country without authorization.
The California survey, in contrast, found that about 6 in 10 voters support ensuring all Californians have access to due process, regardless of whether that person is undocumented or has criminal convictions. This could indicate that the Trump administration's efforts to frame its deportation strategy as a public safety initiative are "falling flat" with California voters, according to the research summary.
'Instead of mass deportations, Californians want to further integrate immigrants, regardless of their legal status, into the fabric of our state,' said Tom Wong, director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego, who was not involved in the survey.
Masih Fouladi, executive director of the immigrant rights group California Immigrant Policy Center, said the survey affirms efforts that advocates are pushing in Sacramento, including increased funding for immigrant legal services and protecting access to healthcare.
'It shows that the people in California still believe in a California for all,' said Fouladi, who wasn't involved in the polling.
This article is part of The Times' equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California's economic divide.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP lawmakers start to sweat redistricting
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben President DONALD TRUMP's gambit to grow House Republicans' razor-thin majority through redistricting is starting to meet rare resistance from his own party. Two vulnerable GOP lawmakers — Reps. KEVIN KILEY of California and MIKE LAWLER of New York — are floating separate efforts to ban mid-decade redistricting as the Trump team's push for Texas Republicans to draw a more favorable map sets off a nationwide redistricting arms race. 'What's happening here is not popular among members in either conference,' Kiley told West Wing Playbook. 'I've talked to Republican members who are in states that could potentially benefit in the general political sense, but they don't like the idea of having their districts completely changed in the middle of the decade.' Lawler did not respond to a request for comment. Kiley filed a bill Tuesday aimed chiefly at stopping Democratic governors from retaliatory gerrymandering if Texas Republicans succeed in pushing through a new map that could net the GOP five seats in the midterms. Kiley and Lawler, both swing-district lawmakers, could feel the effects of Democratic redistricting. Lawler's seat, which has long been on Democrats' target list, would be among the districts where the party would try to stretch its advantage in the state. Kiley is also trying to prod Speaker MIKE JOHNSON and House Minority Leader HAKEEM JEFFRIES to reach an agreement to stop the redistricting tit-for-tat in its tracks, though that appears unlikely. 'The onus is on the speaker to show some leadership here,' Kiley said. GREG STEELE, spokesperson for Johnson's political arm, said 'while these efforts remain at the state level, Speaker Johnson is focused on leading the fight to defend and grow the House Republican majority in any district come 2026.' But the legislative pushback also constitutes rare GOP opposition to the president, who stoked the flames of the redistricting fight Tuesday by saying that Republicans are 'entitled' to five more seats in Texas — even as a White House official told our JAKE TRAYLOR that Trump's team is taking 'a pretty hands-off approach' to the partisan battle they set in motion. Kiley suggested that Trump 'doesn't want to see the California congressional delegation upended, or the New York delegation or some of these other states,' though he said he hasn't spoken with the president on the matter. 'It seems to me he was not given full information about how exactly these things might play out,' Kiley added. A person close to the president granted anonymity to describe internal thinking said Trump's team isn't sweating Democrats' threats of retaliation. Democrats face steep obstacles to redistricting even in their best-case-scenario state of California, where Gov. GAVIN NEWSOM plans to call a special election and potentially spend massive sums to convince voters to return mapmaking power from an independent commission to lawmakers. And Republicans are starting to push for redistricting in states beyond Texas, including Missouri. 'Republicans have more opportunity than Democrats' to redraw maps, and 'Democrats' hurdles in the opportunities they claim to have are much higher, because Democrats have extreme gerrymandered maps in their favor everywhere they can,' the person said. The White House's power-protection play carries increasing political risk. As more Democratic governors vow to retaliate, BRENDAN STEINHAUSER, a Texas-based Republican strategist, warned the GOP's redistricting effort 'could backfire if there are enough Democratic seats out there and enough Democratic governors to redraw the maps in a way that ends up hurting Republicans nationwide.' Game out the chess match further and Republicans' machinations could complicate Trump's agenda in Washington. Trump has gotten nearly everything he's wanted from this GOP House. Even if Republicans hold the House next year, they could do so at the expense of some of those Trump-loyal members. 'It could become a real headache for Johnson, building a majority by sacrificing parts of the current majority,' said California-based GOP strategist ROB STUTZMAN. He added: 'What a shock Trump didn't think it through.' MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER Which president signed the nation's first federal income tax into law? (Answer at bottom.) WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT NOT A TAR HEEL: The director of Voice of America, MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ, has been terminated after refusing to accept a demotion in North Carolina, according to court documents released Monday. JOHN ZADROZNY, a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, VOA's parent company, said in a letter that Abramowitz's 'failure to accept a directed geographic reassignment warrants removal from your position for such cause as to promote the efficiency of the Federal service.' In July, acting USAGM CEO VICTOR MORALES notified Abramowitz that he was being reassigned to the VOA station in Greenville, North Carolina, and being given a new position. In his sworn declaration, Abramowitz said that the rationale for sending him to North Carolina 'does not make sense.' 'I understand that Defendants have indicated that they only plan to broadcast in four languages at VOA (Mandarin, Farsi, Pashto and Dari),' he wrote. 'But the Greenville station, which has historically provided shortwave radio broadcasts mainly to West Africa and Latin America, does not serve countries that speak any of those languages.' Abramowitz is the main plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the president issued an executive order dismantling USAGM. 'My efforts are not about holding onto a government job, but instead about upholding the rule of law and preserving the Voice of America, which is so important to the national security of the United States,' Abramowitz wrote in a message to VOA staff Monday. KARI LAKE, who serves as USAGM senior adviser, told West Wing Playbook that 'We're in good faith union negotiations. This is part of the process.' WE'RE HIRING: The National Weather Service has received permission to hire 450 meteorologists, hydrologists and radar technicians months after the agency faced sweeping DOGE-led cuts, CNN's ANDREW FREEDMAN reports. The new hiring number includes 126 new positions that will apply to 'front-line mission critical' personnel, a NOAA official told CNN. Musk Radar FIVE THINGS UNDONE: The White House today officially ended a program which required federal employees to summarize five weekly achievements in emails, our NICOLE MARKUS and Sophia report. The mandate was originally introduced in February by ELON MUSK as part of an effort to trim the federal workforce. Office of Personnel Management Director SCOTT KUPOR said in a statement that OPM informed agency leads that it would no longer 'manage' the process 'nor utilize it internally.' 'At OPM, we believe that managers are accountable to staying informed about what their team members are working on and have many other existing tools to do so,' Kupor said. Agenda Setting ZELDIN'S ON A HEATER: The EPA is preparing to terminate $7 billion in federal grants aimed at assisting low- and moderate-income families to install solar panels on their homes, NYT's MAXINE JOSELOW reports. The agency is drafting termination letters to 60 nonprofit groups and state agencies that received the grants under the 'Solar for All' program, with the goal of sending the letters by the end of this week. It's the latest move by the Trump administration to claw back billions of dollars in grants awarded under former President JOE BIDEN's Inflation Reduction Act. Representatives for the EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. REVERSING COURSE: Months after the Trump administration said it axed a multibillion-dollar grant program for disaster protection, administration officials said in a court document that it did not actually cancel the program, POLITICO's E&E News' THOMAS FRANK reports. In April, the administration canceled the grant program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, and removed all $4.1 billion from the BRIC account. But in a declaration last month for a court case challenging the move, FEMA acting administrator DAVID RICHARDSON said, 'FEMA has not ended the BRIC program, contrary to publicity otherwise.' He acknowledged his agency's role in that publicity, saying, 'Despite FEMA's public announcements … FEMA/DHS has not ended BRIC.' When presented with the declaration, even BRIC supporters struggled to understand it. 'The information that has been out so far seems to contradict [the declaration], and we want to make sure we're understanding FEMA's intention. This is happy news if this is the case,' said MARY JO FLYNN-NEVINS, head of governmental affairs for the International Association of Emergency Managers, which strongly supports the BRIC program. WHERE'S THE MONEY, LEBOWSKI? The investigative arm of Congress found that the National Institutes of Health illegally withheld funds lawmakers required it to spend, our ERIN SCHUMAKER reports. The Government Accountability Office today said that the Trump administration failed to follow the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act, which determines when a president can cancel funding appropriated by Congress. In implementing a communications pause earlier this year at HHS, and in complying with Trump's various executive orders, the 'NIH withheld funds from obligation and expenditure,' according to the GAO's report. The watchdog also found that HHS failed to inform Congress or the GAO of whether the money is being spent in another way. OUR LIPS ARE SEALED: Defense Secretary PETE HEGSETH has banned officials at a missile defense conference in Alabama this week from discussing the president's favorite weapon system: the multibillion-dollar Golden Dome missile shield, our JOE GOULD and JACK DETSCH report. It follows new rules from the Pentagon that ban personnel from participating in think tank and research organization events. Hegseth's public affairs office told organizers of the Space and Missile Defense Symposium to keep the Golden Dome off the agenda. The Pentagon, when asked for comment, pointed to a July announcement about the creation of an office to oversee the missile shield's development. What We're Reading A Terrible Five Days for the Truth (The Atlantic's David A. Graham) 'Unlike Anything We've Seen': The Energy Industry is Counting on the AI Boom (POLITICO's Debra Kahn) A Look Inside Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan Lair (NYT's David Enrich, Matthew Goldstein, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Steve Eder) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER President ABRAHAM LINCOLN signed the first federal income tax into law on this date in 1861 in a rush to finance the Civil War. Lincoln's tax imposed a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800.
Chicago Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: U.S. Intelligence investigations no longer top secret
Once upon a time, successful intelligence agents were neither seen nor heard, at least in the media. The point of the game was to keep operations secret, at the time and after the conclusion. Times have changed. Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, now the director of National Intelligence, is aggressively and publicly accusing the administration of former President Barack Obama of a criminal conspiracy, with President Donald Trump cheering her on. In November of 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower spoke at the cornerstone ceremony of the new CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He emphasized that in this field, 'Success cannot be advertised; failure cannot be explained. In the work of intelligence, heroes are undecorated and unsung, often even among their own fraternity.' Director Gabbard charges that after the 2016 election, Obama officials, including the president, conspired to undermine newly elected President Trump by spreading falsehoods about Russian interference in the campaign, especially that the Republican candidate and campaign had colluded with the Russian government. She is trumpeting the charges in the media, and even quotes herself on her agency's website. She is also hardly unique today in discussing intel matters publicly. Soon after the 2016 election, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA (National Security Agency) and the director of National Intelligence launched a public relations offensive highlighting how Russia, including President Vladimir Putin, meddled in the race for president, including hacking into the emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign. With great fanfare, they met with President-elect Trump to present evidence behind those conclusions. With equal hype, top officials testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. There is no denying that Russian hackers meddled in the 2016 election. But, serious analysts doubt this had any serious impact. The fact of that interference is also not news. President Obama publicly revealed these developments in October 2016, just before voting took place. After the election, he ordered a review and analysis of the interference. There is no evidence that Obama directed or tried to influence the conclusions of this review. Why did the intelligence officials go public with lights, cameras and melodrama after the 2016 election? They could have briefed Trump in private, which would have been standard intelligence practice. But, they wanted to protect themselves in the contemporary political warfare of Washington. This was an effort to create a shield from political retribution, and that worked to a degree. Nonetheless, Trump's efforts to promote hostile conspiracies began and continue. During Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress seized on the topic of alleged Russian collusion to launch a massive two-year investigation. Millions of dollars were spent on a demonstrably biased effort that nonetheless concluded there was no persuasive evidence of Republican campaign collaboration with Moscow. The Mueller investigation, along with a separate investigation by Special Counsel John Durham, drew attention to a controversial 'dossier' prepared for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Both efforts underscore the partisanship then going on. President Eisenhower's statement about the distinctive and very thankless nature of intelligence work reflected direct, disciplined, continuous engagement with security matters at the very top, over many years. Eisenhower was in the White House during the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and that nation's numerous allies. Earlier, he led the largest, most challenging military alliance in history against Nazi Germany. Failure would have been catastrophic. Officials then regularly replied 'no comment' when asked about particularly sensitive matters. Today's pervasive partisanship and nonstop media reflect our security and self-indulgence. We may yet pay dearly.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump: Vance ‘probably favored at this point' for 2028 nomination
President Trump said Tuesday it was too soon to settle on a successor to serve as the Republican nominee in 2028, but acknowledged Vice President Vance is the 'most likely' heir apparent. 'I think most likely, in all fairness,' Trump said when asked if he would clear the field by backing Vance. 'So it's too early to talk about it, but certainly he's doing a great job and he would be probably favored at this point,' Trump said of his vice president. Trump suggested Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who ran for president in 2016, could make a formidable ticket with Vance. The president also cited others in his Cabinet who could have a future leading the MAGA movement. Trump earlier Tuesday said he would 'probably not' seek a constitutionally prohibited third term. The president and some of his allies have repeatedly floated the idea of a third term. At times, those comments have been dismissed as a joke, though Trump has at other points appeared more serious about the idea. Some political strategists have suggested that Trump's talk of a third term also helps keep a lid on chatter about the 2028 presidential race, taking the spotlight away from the president's administration.
