Shared Principles, Selective Justice

Does political polarization over immigration enforcement reflect disagreement about civic ideals—due process, equal treatment, and limits on state power—or disagreement about who deserves them? Scope of justice theory posits that abstract ideals constrain concrete judgments primarily when targets fall inside one’s moral community. In a probability-based United States sample (N = 1,386, with oversamples of Hispanic and MAGA-identifying respondents), Democrats and Republicans endorsed civic ideals at similarly high levels yet applied them selectively. Among respondents who morally included undocumented immigrants, civic ideals were associated with more critical evaluations of ICE and greater anger toward enforcement. Among those with exclusive moral boundaries, civic ideals showed weak or null associations with enforcement judgments. Moral inclusion and perceived procedural justice were jointly associated with substantial attenuation of partisan gaps in legitimacy judgments of both ICE and local police. Polarization reflects selective application of shared principles rooted in disagreement over moral standing.