Immigrant detention be banned? Constituent, subconstituent, and elite influence over House Democrat's decision to cosponsor the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act.

How responsive are House members to the immigration policy interest of constituents, sub‐constituencies, and businesses? We test members' responsiveness to each of these groups by focusing on House Democrats' decision to cosponsor the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act (DDIA), a bill that phases out the use of private immigrant detention facilities. We expect House Democrats to be more likely to cosponsor DDIA when their constituents possess more liberal immigration attitudes and represent larger Latino, Asian American, and foreign‐born populations. Conversely, we expect House Democrats with private immigrant detention facilities in their districts or accept PAC contributions from private prison companies to be less likely to cosponsor the legislation. Our findings show general support for all three expectations. Thus, even though some House Democrats are unlikely to take positions on liberal immigration reform policies, such as the DDIA, House Democrats are responsive to their constituents on the issue of immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]