Pro-immigration reforms face an uphill battle not because public opinion is against it, but because supporters often see the issue as less important. In new research, Alexander Kustov shows how providing information about immigration’s national benefits can shift not just voters’ positions, but also their priorities.
Why do US lawmakers rarely enact significant reforms to liberalize legal immigration, even when public opinion appears supportive? The answer lies in the unevenness of what voters feel is important: voters opposing immigration consistently view it as more important than those who support it do, focusing especially on reducing immigration numbers. This “immigration issue importance asymmetry” creates an in-built disadvantage for pro-immigration advocates, as political mobilization often depends on how deeply people care about an issue—not just their stance on it.
To address this gap, my new research looks at whether voters’ immigration priorities can be shifted systematically. Through a large, nationally representative survey experiment with 3,450 US adults, I tested the impact of verifiable narratives that highlight the broad national benefits of expanding legal immigration and the costs of maintaining restrictive immigration policies. The results are promising, revealing that well-crafted information campaigns have the potential to alter the importance of the immigration to those who support more liberal policies, without backfiring by mobilizing the opponents.

Photo by Blake Guidry on Unsplash
Issue priority is an often overlooked challenge for those who seek reform
Polls have showed that, until recently, Americans increasingly supported immigration, but also that this support often lacked intensity. This ties to a broader concept in political science: “issue importance”—how much individuals prioritize an issue relative to others in their political behavior. Issue importance shapes not just how people vote, but also actions like advocacy, donations, and contacting representatives. This dynamic explains why some issues, like gun control, struggle to gain political traction. Their low priority among supporters creates a built in disadvantage for those who want reform, even when polls show majority approval.
Using a new “issue-public” measure, my research shows that only 20 percent of voters who truly prioritize immigration—the “immigration issue public”—hold pro-immigration preferences. Unlike the commonly used “most important problem” question, which may conflate whether people see an issue as a problem with how much they personally care about it, the issue-public measure captures deeper, long-term engagement. It identifies voters who consistently focus on an issue—paying attention to related news, evaluating candidates based on their stance, and making the issue central to their political identity. My results are clear that anti-immigration voters are disproportionately represented within this group, even though they often make up a smaller share of the population.
Moreover, my findings, in Figure 1 below, show that (largely liberal Democratic) pro-immigration and (largely conservative Republican) anti-immigration voters care about different aspects of the issue. Anti-immigration voters prioritize reducing future immigration flows and strong enforcement measures, such as deportations and border security. Meanwhile, pro-immigration voters focus on helping immigrants who are already in the country, such as addressing citizenship barriers and improving their treatment. Taken together, these imbalances underscore a critical challenge: while pro-immigration attitudes may be widespread, they often lack the intensity and sustained focus—particularly on legal admissions reforms—needed to effectively influence policy.
Figure 1 – Differences in priorities of issues related to immigration

Testing a new approach to reduce the issue priority gap
My survey experiment exposed participants to concise and verifiable arguments on immigration they may not have encountered before. Each text presented focused on three core elements: the national benefits of increasing legal immigration, the significant costs of current restrictive policies, and how expanding immigration could help address other pressing challenges. Framed in accessible, nonjudgmental language and grounded in verifiable data, this approach stood apart from traditional immigration persuasion experiments, which often focus on correcting misperceptions or appealing to humanitarian concerns. Instead, these narratives highlighted the concrete, mutually beneficial impacts of immigration while drawing attention to the often-overlooked costs of restrictive policies or the benefits of expanding legal immigration pathways.
My results (Figure 2) show that exposure to these arguments increased immigration’s perceived importance among pro-immigration voters by approximately 16 percent, effectively narrowing the priority gap. Importantly, this shift did not mobilize anti-immigration voters—addressing a key concern for advocates wary of triggering public backlash when immigration is highlighted in any mass media. Furthermore, the narratives yielded an unexpected benefit: they also modestly increased pro-immigration preferences across all voters, regardless of their prior stance.
Figure 2 – Information effects on immigration issue importance

While the intervention successfully raised immigration’s perceived importance among sympathetic voters, it did not significantly increase their willingness to sign petitions, nor did it shift their perceived priority of legal admissions over immigrant rights. Moreover, none of the narratives about non-immigration issues were able to decrease the importance of immigration among those who oppose it. This suggests that changing the personal importance of specific issues through information alone may be difficult and likely requires pairing with additional strategies.
Why priorities matter for productive reform efforts
Differences in priorities are a formidable barrier to policy change. Anti-immigration voters are not only more mobilized but also more likely to influence politicians who respond to intense minority pressures. To counter this dynamic, pro-immigration advocates must go beyond changing minds—they need to make immigration a more pressing issue for voters who are already likely to support it.
My findings suggest this can be achieved by informing people about the tangible benefits of immigration in ways that align with their broader concerns. Efforts to promote pro-immigration reforms will remain constrained unless advocates address differences in public priorities. While persuading people to change their positions on immigration is important, building a politically engaged base of supporters also requires making immigration feel more urgent and central to their concerns.
Still, my other research shows that narratives and media campaigns alone are unlikely to overcome the entrenched stability of immigration attitudes, especially in a political environment already saturated with anti-immigration rhetoric. Ultimately, what resonates with voters is not a perfectly crafted message but tangible results. Policies that visibly and measurably improve people’s lives—such as addressing labor shortages, revitalizing communities, and reuniting families—are far more effective at building lasting support for immigration. Narratives can set the stage, but visible policy outcomes will always be the most convincing argument.
- This article is based on the paper, ‘Beyond Changing Minds: Raising the Issue Importance of Expanding Legal Immigration’ in Perspectives on Politics.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eNS