Nearly all Republicans and almost two-out-of-three swing voters prefer companies hire Americans before hiring immigrants, an Ipsos poll revealed.

Republicans agreed by 87 percent to 11 percent, independents agreed by 63 percent to 34 percent, and Democrats opposed a pro-American preference, splitting 45 percent to 54 percent, according to the poll of 1,019 Americans, taken January 11-13.

The Axios-funded poll matches prior survey showing overwhelming public demand that companies hire Americans before they import more foreign workers — and it shows the political risk facing Democrats and President-elect Joe Biden as they promise to welcome job-seeking migrants.

The poll is also relevant for GOP legislators as they consider voting for Biden’s pro-migration nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.

But the question in the new Ipsos poll of 1,019 people likely understated opposition to migration during a recession.

The pollster asked: “When jobs are scarce, employers should prioritize hiring people of this country over immigrants?”

That question is ambiguous, partly because many establishment media outlets use the term “immigrant” to describe illegal migrants. So the question could have been interpreted by some people — especially Democrats — as making  “Should native-born Americans get preference for jobs over legal-immigrant Americans?”

Other respondents may have thought they were being asked: “Should Americans have hiring priority over illegal migrants?” or “should American have hiring priority over foreigners who might migrate into the United States?”

The Ipsos ambiguity may explain why Democrats did not favor Americans over immigrants. The poll showed 20 percent of Democrats “strongly disagree” and 35 percent “somewhat disagree” that Americans should have hiring priority.

In late November, a precise question by Rasmussen Reports produced a clear answer. The Rasmussen question was:

When businesses say they are having trouble finding Americans to take jobs in construction, manufacturing, hospitality and other service work, what is generally best for the country? Is it better for businesses to raise the pay and try harder to recruit non-working Americans even if it causes prices to rise, or is it better for the government to bring in new foreign workers to help keep business costs and prices down?

The answer showed that 66 percent of Americans prefer pay and recruitment for Americans, while only 19 percent favored additional foreign workers.

GOP respondents split 74 percent to 13 percent, and swing-voting “other” voters split 62 percent to 20 percent.

The Rasmussen poll showed Democrats also strongly backed Americans over corporate migrants by 64 percent to 23 percent — marking a 40-point gap with the Ipsos poll.

For years, many pollsters’ results have shown deep and broad opposition to cheap-labor migration — and the inflow of temporary contract workers. into the jobs needed by young and old Americans.

The multi-racial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based opposition to cheap-labor migration co-exists with generally favorable personal feelings toward legal immigrants and toward immigration in theory — despite the media magnification of many skewed polls and articles which still push the 1950’s “Nation of Immigrants” claim.

In 2016, the voters’ understandable solidarity with their fellow-Americans carried Donald Trump’s pro-American policies into the White House. Those policies helped shrink American unemployment and raise Americans’ wages.

In 2020, however, Trump’s immigration speeches ignored the economic impact of cheap-labor migration. Instead, he focused on the donor-approved subsidiary issues of illegal migration, crime, and sanctuary cities. Trump’s do-not-follow-the-money strategy was quickly countered by a wave of soft-focus, pro-migration advertising from corporate donors.

Investigative surveys also show that the public hides its overwhelming opposition to any migration. For example, a 2014 report showed that roughly 60 percent support “cutting off migration“:

The results suggest that respondents mask their opposition and [that] underlying anti-immigration sentiment is far higher than direct estimates suggest even before the financial crisis… We implore future efforts to measure anti-immigration sentiment to be cautious about direct measurement of opposition, as these measures underestimate anti-immigration sentiment both before and after the financial crisis.

The public skepticism toward migration is understandable because migrants help transfer massive wealth from American wage-earners to stockholders.

Migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.

The economic transfer is recognized by independent academics, the National Academies of Science, the Congressional Budget Office, executives, The Economist, more academics, the New York Times, the New York Times again, state officials, unions, more business executives, a Nobel-winning economist, lobbyists, many academics, the Wall Street Journal, federal economists, Goldman Sachs, oil drillers, the Bank of Ireland, Wall Street analysts, fired professionals, legislators, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2015 Bernie Sanders, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Eric Weinstein, more Wall Street Journal, construction workers, New York Times subscribers, a former Treasury secretary, academic economists, a New York Times columnist, a Bloomberg columnist, author Barack Obama, President Barack Obama, and the Business Roundtable.

Migration also allows investors and CEOs to skimp on labor-saving technology, sideline U.S. minorities, ignore disabled people, exploit stoop labor in the fields, shortchange labor in the cities, impose tight control and pay cuts on American professionals.

Migration also helps corral technological innovation by minimizing the employment of American graduates, undermine Americans’ labor rights, and redirect progressive journalists to cheerlead for Wall Street’s priorities and claims.