How Immigrants View America's Global Role

Immigration has long been a contentious and divisive issue at the forefront of partisan politics in the United States. It is one of the defining issues of President Donald Trump’s second administration, which has, in just a few short months, transformed the US immigration system with a series of sweeping executive orders.

Since returning to the Oval Office, Trump has dismantled key pathways for legal immigration, invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to detain and deport immigrants without due process, moved to end birthright citizenship, and pursued the denaturalization of citizens. At the core of this anti-immigration agenda is the argument that immigrants pose a threat to the national security of the United States—not just because they compete for limited resources or exploit border security, but because they think differently and will, therefore, fundamentally reshape American culture, society, and policy direction.

While there is an abundance of research on how Americans feel about immigrants and their impact on society in the United States, including that conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, little attention is paid to the opinions of the immigrants themselves. Few have put a spotlight on the domestic and foreign policy views of first- and second-generation immigrants to understand how they view the world and their place in it—and how their perceptions differ from those of Americans whose families have been in the United States longer.

The prevailing narrative is that immigrants hold distinct policy views that are shaped by their unique political socialization, experiences in their countries of origin, close ties to friends and families abroad, and strong cultural identities. However, data from the 2024 Chicago Council Survey, fielded June 21–July 1, 2024, tells a much different story—one that defies these assumptions.

A Look into the Great American Melting Pot

The United States is home to almost 48 million immigrants, accounting for 14 percent of the overall population—a proportion that has steadily increased over the last five decades. In the 2024 CCS sample, two in 10 Americans (21%) self-identify as either a first- (9%) or second-generation (12%) immigrant to the United States, meaning either themselves or their parents were born outside of the country. These Americans tend to have immigrated from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and with hyphenated identities and dual citizenship, they often maintain close ties to their countries of origin.

The same share also self-identifies as either a third- or fourth-generation immigrant (19%), or someone whose grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the United States. These Americans tend to have Southern and Eastern European heritage with which they loosely identify and whose cuisine and traditions they’ve adapted to become American (think of an Italian gabagool sandwich). Finally, the bulk of Americans in the sample (48%) say their families have been in the United States for four or more generations.

For the purposes of this analysis, first and second-generation immigrants are considered new immigrants, while third-generation immigrants and those whose families have been in the United States for four or more generations are considered old immigrants.

A deeper look at the demographic composition of American immigrants shows some key differences between those newer to the United States and those who have been here for a few generations. As compared to the old stock, new immigrants tend to be younger in age, more racially diverse, and just slightly less educated. While old immigrants are equally divided across partisan affiliations, new immigrants identify more with Democrats and Independents.

Given these differences, it would be reasonable to expect that new immigrants might see the world—and the United States's role in it—quite differently. But the data show otherwise.

Immigrants Share Similar Vision for US Role in the World

Take one of the most fundamental questions in foreign policy: should the United States play an active role in the world or stay out of world affairs? The majority of old immigrants say the United States should play an active role in world affairs (61%), while new immigrants are more divided (52%). Like younger Americans, new immigrants are less inclined to favor an active US role in the world. However, at the end of the day, they tend to agree that the Washington should play an active part and that the benefits of maintaining an active role in the world outweigh the costs (57% old vs. 53% new) (see appendix table 1).

There is also consensus on how the United States should carry out its foreign policy and achieve its goals on the international stage. Across the different generations of immigrants, maintaining existing alliances (92% old vs. 88% new), US military superiority (86% both), and signing international agreements (81% new vs. 78% old) are seen the most effective approaches for achieving US foreign policy goals.

Majorities also believe participating in international organizations and sending military aid to other countries are powerful tools for extending American influence abroad, but the different generations of immigrants do so at varying degrees. When it comes to international organizations, new immigrants are more likely to see their efficacy (79% vs. 71% old); on the other hand, old immigrants are more likely to see the efficacy of providing military aid to other countries (69% vs. 64% new). But, by new and old immigrants alike, using economic tools like sanctions, tariffs, and economic aid are seen as the least effective approaches to US foreign policy.

When it Comes to Priorities, Immigrants Are on the Same Page

What American policymakers should prioritize when shaping US foreign policy is another debate that often divides Americans across partisan and generational lines. However, new and old immigrants seem to agree that protecting the jobs of American workers (80% old, 76% new), preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (77% old, 71% new), and improving America’s standing in the world (60% old, 54% new) should be the most important goals.

Limiting climate change stands out as a goal that new immigrants are more likely to see as important in the making of US foreign policy (54%) than old immigrants (45%). On a separate item, new immigrants are also more likely to say US leaders aren’t giving the issue of climate change enough attention (61%) than old immigrants (50%), who, on the other hand, are more likely to prioritize attention to US-China competition (49%, 41% new).

New immigrants’ emphasis on climate change may reflect their younger composition: Generation Z and Millennials are also more likely than older generations of Americans to prioritize climate change, believe it is not receiving adequate attention, and favor a broad range of climate change mitigation policies.

Divisions Emerge on Trade and Economy

Taken together, data from the 2024 CCS show that new immigrants and those whose families have been in the United States for longer embrace a shared vision for American foreign policy. Climate change stands out as an issue dividing them, but it is not the only one. When it comes to domestic priorities, like trade and the economy, differences between new and old immigrants emerge, reflecting the socioeconomic factors that influence how immigrants experience life in the United States.

The federal budget is one example. New immigrants tend to prioritize expanding the federal budget for social services and welfare programs like healthcare (71%), education (71%), and social security (60%) than old immigrants (65%, 64%, and 56%, respectively). They are also less likely to favor expanding the budget for defense spending (23%) than old immigrants (30%).

And when it comes to international trade, the plurality of new immigrants say the United States should pursue a policy of free trade (46%), much preferring to see lower prices at the store. On the other hand, the plurality of old immigrants believe the United States should seek greater self-sufficiency (43%), preferring to see American-made products on shelves.

This division persists on a different, but similar item: new immigrants are less likely to favor restricting imported foreign goods to protect American jobs (58%) than old immigrants (71%) and more likely than old immigrants to say US trade policy shouldn’t have any trade restrictions to enable consumers to have the most choices and lower prices (39% new vs. 27% old).

Differences in the economic priorities of new and old immigrants may have less to do with their socialization or proximity to their countries of origin, and more to do with their socioeconomic status. First-generation immigrants in particular face a range of barriers to employment, including low educational attainment, limited social networks, and weak English language skills; as a result, they have the lowest median household income and feel economic shocks more acutely1. Taken together, the data show that first- and second-generation immigrants favor free trade to a greater degree than others and believe it is especially beneficial to their lives and economic conditions.

Conclusion

In a time when citizenship is weaponized by the Trump administration and immigration is perceived by the right to be an existential threat to American national identity, these findings illuminate the views of first- and second-generation immigrants and offer a deeper understanding of how they see their place in both the United States and the world. Despite the political rhetoric casting immigrants as fundamentally different from Americans or incompatible with American values, the data show something far less radical and far more American: an embrace of multilateralism and belief in US leadership on the global stage. While there are some differences in the policy preferences of new immigrants and those whose families have been in the United States for longer, the data suggest these differences are shaped more by generation and socioeconomic factors than by immigration status or proximity to countries of origin.

• 1

  This analysis focuses solely on the economic outcomes of first-generation immigrants because their economic experiences are more unique than those of second-generation immigrants. Research shows that second-generation immigrants, having been raised in the United States, have higher levels of educational attainment, stronger English language skills, and a more robust social network. As a result, their median household income is similar to or slightly higher than that of the old stock.