A new national survey found that more Americans believe employers use immigration status to suppress wages than disagree, while separate polling shows substantial opposition to immigration proposals that offer legal residency without a pathway to citizenship.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — More than four in 10 registered American voters believe employers use workers’ immigration status to hold down wages, according to new polling that also reveals widespread concerns about corporate labor practices and competing proposals for immigration reform.
The survey, conducted by Wave Polling and Research from Sept. 30 through Oct. 5 and funded by the hospitality workers union UNITE HERE, found that 43% of respondents agreed that “employers use immigration status to hold wages down for everyone.”
Another 29% disagreed, while 7% expressed uncertainty, according to the polling results published by Wave Polling and Research.
The findings were highlighted Thursday in a Breitbart News report examining public concerns about immigration, labor competition and employers’ influence over wages.
The survey suggests that a substantial segment of the electorate believes companies can use differences in workers’ immigration status to influence labor costs, particularly when employees face limitations on their ability to challenge workplace conditions or seek alternative employment.
However, the poll measures public perceptions of employer behavior rather than independently establishing the extent to which immigration affects wages across the economy.
The national survey included approximately 1,000 registered voters and was conducted online by California-based Verasight. Its reported margin of error was 3.4 percentage points.
Wave Polling and Research also conducted a separate survey of 1,030 registered Florida voters from Oct. 1 through Oct. 5, examining immigration enforcement, economic concerns and potential changes to federal immigration law.
Those findings included opposition to a central provision of the Dignity Act, bipartisan immigration legislation introduced by Republican Rep. María Elvira Salazar of Florida and Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas.
The proposal would establish a renewable legal status for certain immigrants who have lived in the United States for years without authorization, allowing them to remain and work legally without providing an automatic pathway to citizenship.
The polling described the approach as creating a new legal classification for immigrant workers while withholding eligibility for citizenship.
Nationally, 50% of respondents opposed that arrangement, compared with 29% who supported it.
Opposition was slightly higher in Florida, where 52% rejected the proposal and 30% supported it.
According to Florida Politics’ Oct. 28 report, the survey did not identify the Dignity Act by name or explain every provision of the legislation when asking respondents about the legal-status proposal.
That distinction is important because the results reflect voters’ responses to the policy description rather than a comprehensive assessment of the legislation.
The Dignity Act, reintroduced in July 2025, would allow qualifying immigrants who entered the country before 2021 to obtain temporary legal status through a program requiring background checks, payment of outstanding taxes and financial contributions totaling $7,000 over seven years.
Participants who fulfill the requirements could renew their authorization to remain and work legally.
Separate provisions would address immigrants brought to the United States as children, while other sections concern border security and asylum procedures.
Salazar has promoted the measure as a compromise intended to address labor shortages, immigration enforcement and the status of longtime residents without granting citizenship to every participant.
During an April news conference, Salazar addressed criticism that the proposal would benefit employers seeking lower labor costs.
“When people tell me that I am trying to help big business to have cheap labor, I’m going to answer them: It’s not [just] big business, it’s not only agricultural or construction or hospitality or health care or manufacturing — it’s more,” Salazar said.
The congresswoman has argued that creating a legal employment framework would help address economic and labor-force demands while avoiding a broader citizenship agreement that has repeatedly failed to advance through Congress.
The Wave surveys nevertheless found considerably stronger support for an alternative that includes a pathway to citizenship for qualifying longtime immigrants.
Nationally, 79% of respondents supported allowing immigrants who had lived in the United States for at least 10 years, paid taxes and passed background checks to pursue citizenship.
In Florida, 75% supported that approach.
G. Elliott Morris, a principal at Wave Polling and Research, described the citizenship proposal as “one of the more popular policies (he’d) ever seen.”
Additional findings indicate that voters distinguish concerns about employer conduct from opposition to immigrant workers themselves.
In Florida, 52% of respondents blamed large corporations seeking higher profits for wages failing to keep pace with living costs, compared with 18% who attributed the problem to immigrants competing for jobs.
Only 28% of Florida respondents believed deporting immigrants would raise wages for workers like themselves. Nationally, that figure was 23%.
The findings reflect the complexity of public attitudes toward immigration and economic conditions.
Some voters express concern that employers can use immigration status to weaken workers’ bargaining power while also supporting legal protections and citizenship opportunities for longtime immigrant residents.
The economic effects of immigration depend on several factors, including labor-market conditions, workers’ skills, industries, geographic differences and the extent to which employers compete for employees.
Research has produced varying estimates of immigration’s effects on wages, with some studies identifying greater competitive pressure on particular groups of workers and others finding limited overall effects or economic gains through increased production and consumer demand.
The Wave surveys did not directly measure those economic outcomes.
UNITE HERE represents workers in hotels, restaurants, casinos and other hospitality businesses, industries that employ substantial numbers of immigrant workers.
The union has advocated immigration policies that provide legal protections and greater workplace security for immigrants, arguing that vulnerable employment arrangements can make it more difficult for workers to assert their rights.
The survey’s sponsorship provides relevant context for interpreting the research, although funding alone does not establish that its findings are inaccurate.
Florida’s survey carried a reported margin of error of 4.4 percentage points, compared with 3.4 percentage points for the national results.
The findings were released as immigration policy remains a prominent issue ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
Taken together, the polling indicates that many Americans are concerned about employers using immigration status to influence wages, while substantial majorities support a citizenship pathway for longtime immigrants who meet specified requirements.
The results also demonstrate that public concerns about corporate labor practices do not necessarily translate into support for mass deportations or immigration proposals that permanently exclude qualifying workers from citizenship.
Original article
Comments