This study revisits the subjective social position framework initially introduced by Martinez-Ebers, Branton, and Calfano (2021), which was originally applied to analyze variations in evaluations of policing. The framework synthesizes three competing explanations for differing views on police performance: ascribed characteristics (e.g., race, gender), psychological mindset (e.g., attitudes toward authority, trust in government), and personal experiences (e.g., encounters with law enforcement). In this study, the applicability of this framework is tested in the context of U.S. immigration policy, a topic often debated with polarized views. The original framework suggested that individuals in lower subjective social positions tend to favor less restrictive policies and greater inclusivity. If this pattern holds, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that individuals with lower subjective social positions will support more lenient immigration policies compared to those with higher subjective social positions.
The study uses data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) to assess these attitudes and the extent to which subjective social position predicts individuals’ stances on immigration policy. This approach builds on the assumption that subjective social position, as previously shown in the context of policing, will similarly influence political preferences and policy evaluations in the realm of immigration.