Kaiser Foundation on “Limited Empirical Validation”
In their most recent Misinformation Tracking Poll, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that Republican respondents are more likely to believe false claims made by politicians and elected officials about immigrants than are Democrats, followed by Independents. For example, 45% of Republican respondents say it is “definitely true” that immigrants elevate violent crime, as do just 6% of Democrats, and 20% of Independents. Add in those who think it’s “probably true,” and you get to 81% among Republican respondents, 53% among Independents, and 22% among Democrats. Similar, slightly lower, shares are misinformed on immigrants raising unemployment among the US-born, and on relieving labor shortages, with more Democrats believing the latter to be true than Republicans.
But the real shock might be the small shares of those of every political stripe who have not heard the true claim that immigrants pay more into the tax system than they receive in benefits. This has been documented for decades, and by those with very different principles.
Although 80% of American adults have heard the false claims about violent crime, and 69% have heard the true claim about immigrants relieving labor shortages, just 31% have heard the true claim about contributions to the tax system. And here there’s a greater disparity between Democrats and Republicans. Although Democrats are more likely to have heard the true claims about relief of labor shortages, and Republicans more likely to have heard the false claims about crime and unemployment, shares average within five points of each other, in the 90% range. However, thirty-eight percent of surveyed Democrats have heard the claims about tax payments, as have just 23% of Republicans, dropping the share to 61%.
And while, for example, 90% of Democrats believe immigrants surely or probably reduce labor shortages, as do 86% of Independents and 75% of Republicans, 59% of Democrats believe immigrants pay billions into the tax system every year, as do 40% of Independents, and just 22% of Republicans. Note the highest share on that count is lower than the lowest share who have heard the news on labor shortages.
We might ask the immigrants themselves—a more accurate sixty-five percent correctly believe they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, a belief shared by just thirty-six percent of adults overall.
Kaiser also highlights our “muddled middle.” Fifty-six percent of American adults are unsure if claims about crime are true, with 28% believing they are either probably false or probably true. Margins are tighter among immigrants causing unemployment, 27% probably true, 30% probably false, and on relieving labor shortages, where 44% believe that’s probably true, and 11% probably false.
Thirty-six percent of immigrant adults say former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric has had a negative effect on how they are treated, rising to 45% among Asian immigrants. About three-quarters of immigrants say Vice President Harris’s words have not affected their treatment, with about thirty percent of Asian immigrants believing her words have had a positive effect on their treatment.
A quarter of immigrants believe it will make no difference in their own lives which candidate wins the White House, but 55% believe they will be better off under a Harris presidency, while 19% believe Trump will be more beneficial.
Seventy-three percent of immigrants who identify as Democrats believe immigrants will be better off under Harris, and just under half of those who identify as Republicans believe they will be better off under Trump, a bit of a blow to the concept of enlightened self-interest.
KFF’s President Drew Altman commented on the survey, calling the claims about violent crime the “ultimate example of amplification of misinformation by political figures based on the intentional use of anecdotes.”
He points out that politicians have a long history of using the vulnerability of those who feel left behind to fears about immigration. And that is most visible in the claim that immigrants are “widely committing murder,” through the use of one or two outlier anecdotes, a case of “limited empirical validation,” in social-science lingo.
A Truly “Who Knew?” Survey
Montana grizzly bears forage in the dusk
We came across a survey covering public support for the Endangered Species Act, including among different demographics, over roughly the last twenty years.
Jeremy Bruskotter and Ramiro Berardo, who teach at Ohio State, and John Bruskotter, at University of Michigan, compiled polls taken over the last twenty years and found support of the Act to be remarkably stable.
As background, visible declines in game species and those taken for millinery use, like the Carolina parakeet whose flocks once darkened the skies, led John Lacey, a Republican representative from Iowa, to introduce the Lacey Act of 1900, the first legislation regulating commercial animal markets. Later came the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1929, between the US and Canada, and others leading up to the broader Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Some animals protected by these acts have recovered, like our iconic bald eagle, bison, manatee and grizzly bear, while others, like the whooping crane, remain endangered with slowly recovering populations. That’s not so shocking: science-based conservation science is often effective and takes time.
What is shocking: the broader Endangered Species Act of 1973, written at Richard Nixon’s request, passed with a 355-4 vote. And the public likes it.
The authors compared results of the base survey conducted in 1996, and those conducted in 2011, 2014 and 2015 and found them “statistically indistinguishable.” Overall, four in five American support the Act, and one in ten oppose it, while some don’t know what they think. And, while gun control and climate change have become increasingly polarized, the majority of self-identified liberals, 90%, moderates, 77%, and conservatives, 74% support the Act. No surprise that 92% of environmentalists support the Act, as do 73% of hunters, who often partner with ecological conservation groups, but it is stunning that 71% of farmers and ranchers support protecting vulnerable species, as do 69% of property rights advocates, who have been among the most verbal opponents.
Another surprise: Some supporters of the Act have expressed concern that protecting “controversial” animals, like gray wolves, may turn people in wolf territory against the Act, but both trust in the Fish & Wildlife Service, which administers the Act, and opinions about wolves within and without wolf territory are equivalent.
If this all seems odd given the unflagging pressure in Congress to weaken the Act, other research, specifically this study of wolf reintroduction in Scotland, shows that leaders of special interest groups often hold more extreme views than their members.