So, just where do Americans stand on the red-hot issue of illegal immigration? Is it true that they want the government to just “build the dang fence” and be done with it? Are they so fed up with those who have violated immigration laws that they are clamoring for mass deportation? Or do they want immigration reform that combines enforcement with legal status for those rooted here? Do they like the Arizona “papers, please” immigration law and want other states to act, or do they want a comprehensive, federal solution?
A careful reading of opinion surveys over several years shows that the public has a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes a pragmatic immigration solution, and what constitutes political pandering.
In sum, here is where they stand: They are fed-up and frustrated, but only some are angry at immigrants; most are frustrated with the federal government’s failure to advance a solution. The broken immigration system has become for them a potent symbol of how Washington has failed to step up and solve tough problems. They want their leaders to take bold action that ends illegal immigration. And the action they strongly prefer is a national and comprehensive approach that couples enforcement measures at the border and the workplace with a practical and humane path to legal status for those here without papers.
Here is some of the most recent evidence, which tracks polling results over the past few years:
A recent poll from Fox News (yes, that Fox News) found that 68 percent of voters – including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – say efforts to secure the border should be combined with reform of federal immigration laws by Congress. What do voters mean by reform of federal immigration laws?; In the Fox poll, 68 percent “favor allowing illegal immigrants who pay taxes and obey the law to stay in the United States.”
But what about the Republican mantra of “secure the border first?” As the Fox News analysis puts it:
While more voters think the government should secure the border first (21 percent) than pass new immigration laws (7 percent), most -- 68 percent -- say both should be done at the same time. That includes majorities of Democrats (72 percent), independents (67 percent) and Republicans (65 percent).
This survey captures the fact that a solid two-thirds of voters realize that an “either/or” approach has to yield to a “both/and” strategy. Enhanced security plus a path to earned legal status is the solution.
Clearly, those watching Fox News should pay more attention to their immigration polling than the simplistic, enforcement-only rhetoric coming from many of their guests.
The Fox poll isn’t unique. It’s actually the standard. Check these recent results from a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll of that city and its suburbs:
Nearly all of those who responded, 87 percent, believed that some sort of legal status should be offered to the nearly 11 million people in the country illegally, provided that the immigrants aren't dangerous felons, that they learn English and that they pay fines and back taxes.
Opinions about immigration in the suburbs are slightly different than in Chicago, whose immigrants from around the world have helped define the city. In some collar-county communities that have only recently seen new immigration, there is more support for police enforcement and a more negative view of illegal immigrants. On the question of offering legal status, 84 percent of those in the collar counties said they would support such a program, compared with 90 percent in the city.
Got that? In this poll, 84% support for offering legal status represents the “more negative view.” Let’s be realistic: rare is the issue that enjoys 84% support.
And it’s not just voters in the suburbs of Chicago, but in Idaho and Alabama, and Arkansas, Missouri, and Ohio who also support comprehensive immigration reform.
Take Colorado: a recent IPSOS poll of likely Colorado voters found that by 64 to 34 percent, Colorado voters agreed that “A person residing here illegally in the United States with a clean record should be able to pay a fine, their taxes, and then have the opportunity to become U.S. citizens.” By a similar 62 percent to 33 percent split, these same respondents favor deporting those here illegally who commit crimes and allowing those remaining to stay. In contrast to their support for a sensible earned citizenship plan, Colorado voters rejected blanket deportation proposals by a 58 percent to 40 percent margin.
But why do polls show public support for Arizona’s “show me your papers” law? Because voters are frustrated, they want action, and sympathize with those who take matters into their own hands given Washington’s failure to act. But if you look closely, event these polls show strong support for a “both/and” approach, one that combines enforcement with a path to legal status for those here illegally. Here are some examples:
In fact, recent polling conducted by the Democratic firm of Lake Research Partners and the Republican firm of Public Opinion Strategies for America’s Voice found that while a majority of poll respondents supported the Arizona ‘papers please’ immigration law, a whopping 84% of those who voiced support for the Arizona law also supported comprehensive immigration reform.
Then, sigh, there’s CNN’s polling. Their polls from May and July present an “either/or” choice of border security or a path to citizenship, in line with the conventional wisdom offered by the inside-the beltway punditry. Sure, it’s an easier construct, but it’s also irrelevant. The question is not “do we secure the border or do we give citizenship to undocumented immigrants,” but “how do we secure the border and deal with undocumented immigrants”? CNN’s either/or choice shows 42% favor a path to legal status and 57 percent favor stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, as if voters can only have one or the other.
Buried deeper in the May CNN poll – and rarely mentioned – is the finding that 80% of those surveyed favor “creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes.”
Clearly, the public realizes that a pragmatic approach to dealing with the whole problem requires a national approach, enforcement and a path to legal status for qualified undocumented immigrants. They don’t call it “amnesty,” they call it “accountability,” and that’s where Americans are—even if political class in DC doesn’t get it yet.
Cross-Posted at America's Voice
Follow Frank Sharry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/americasvoice
KEN: Name something "obsolete" about current immigration laws? As far as anyone can tell, for a variety of reasons, the feds just won't enforce current immigrations laws.
SEAN777: "...and we did not have the technology to enforce the laws before, now we do, the problem of immigration is technological not political we can secure the border with unmanned aircraft surveillance to hunt down smugglers along all our borders and a biometric identification system can track down all visitors and their visa expirations."
KEN: You can't secure the border 100% — impossible. The Ruskies tried that with the Berlin Wall and failed. People will go under it, around it, over it, through it, or just over-stay their visas. That said, where possible, building better fences (both actual and virtual) can make the Border Patrol's job easier.
What is required is internal enforcement, and whenever internal enforcement is used, then the open-border MEChA types immediately start whining about racism. You don't really want a biometric identification system in place since you're an obvious MEChA plant talking out of both sides of your mouth.
KEN: If your biometric ID system worked (in conjunction with E-verify), then wouldn't they self-deport? Why would they stay if they can't work here legally?
The major impossible cost that you're conveniently ignoring is the cost of vetting and legalizing 12 million aliens — how do you propose doing that?
Back in 1986 when they only had 3 million illegals to vet it was a total mess and poorly done. E.g., many criminals were granted green cards because we didn't have the resources to properly check them out. NOW, you think we can do 12 million? On top of the 1 million that we already vet annually, and even that 1 million clogs the system, so how will that ever work?
SEAN777: "... no green cards are planed to be granted to illegals immediately they will have to wait 8 years paying taxes without accessing benefits as part of their penalty ... that’s far more severe than the fine only approach proposed in 2007."
KEN: Nevertheless, what you still want is amnesty.
SEAN777: "... any changes on rules for citizenship can not be applied retroactively in a practical way like some “republican” politicians of Arizona are proposing.
KEN: Red herring — who has ever proposed making any such changes retroactive? That wouldn't be legal.
But the political pressure is preventing that from happening. And THAT'S why people don't take CIR seriously -- everyone knows what happens when there's a bill that promises amnesty and future enforcement. We're STILL WAITING for the enforcement provisions of the 1986 amnesty. People aren't going to be sold the same nonsense twice.
"The [Quinnipiac] poll, carried out during the first week in September, found that respondents had a strong anti-[immigration] tilt, favoring, by 68% to 24%, stricter enforcement of immigration laws rather than integrating illegal immigrants into society and, by 48% to 45%, an end to the constitutionally guaranteed practice of granting U.S. citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants."
"By a 60%-to-28% margin, respondents disapproved of the way Obama is handling illegal immigration, the poll found."
latimes.com/news/la-pn-immigration-mosque-poll-20100914,0,1475271.story
Wow.
The rest of the open-border analysis is wrong, wrong, wrong. Illegal aliens don't pay taxes on their income because they don't make much money -- that's the way our tax system works. There is NO SUCH THING as an illegal alien who hasn't broken dozens of laws -- ID laws, I-9 perjury, driving without a license or insurance, etc., etc.
And what about the businesses who have been hiring the illegal aliens? An amnesty is an amnesty for the business community as well.... but that's something Frank Sharry doesn't want you to think about.
http://immigrationcounters.com/
These site communicate our issue well also.
http://www.fairus.org
http://www.cis.org
http://www.numbersusa.com
Please... join us. The Catholic Church and the Mexican Government are putting a huge amount of money into defeating us. Google... Catholic Church Migrants ...and find out what they have in mind for the United States.
Defeat who? The National Socialist Movement perhaps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byegalbEPts&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9izfNXxzo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHi6_l1XzA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS6mj8lcAPA&feature=related
It is not only the Catholic and Christian Churches, the whole United Nations are against the NSM establishment in Arizona.
The UN is an irrelevant body full of people with unaccountable power. They're also full of nations that want to send their poverty classes to the United States.
This sounds sane. But at the same time, it has NOT been played up by Faux News because it doesn't fit in with their negative, minority, biased view of immigration.
But if those same people were told we have already had 7 amnesties for millions of illegals that caused the problem we have now, plus the back taxes would actually amount to refunds for most illegals (low income and high birth rates + deductions/EITC/head of household), plus Janet Napolitano has already said the border is secure, plus those illegals would then be able to bring in tens of millions of their family before badly needed doctors/nurses/engineers, plus the amnesty would happen BEFORE any securing of the border their answers would likely be much different.
But of course the truth is hard to come by since nobody ever says it - too much money in keeping up massive record immigration - more then the rest of the world combined.
Then if you told people that our population will hit 450 million before 2050 without any amnesty and we are already facing shortages of water/energy/good land/schools/hospitals/infrastructure/landfills/etc they would likely change their mind.
Most ILLEGAL ALIENS are paid in cash under the table so they don't pay income tax. LEGAL immigrants pay taxes but ILLEGALS don't. ILLEGAL ALIENS shouldn't be able to "access" anything this country has to offer. They need to go back to their own countries and suck them dry.
We MUST HEAVILY fine those who hire ILLEGALS so the jobs for them would dry up and they would self-deport (costing us NOTHING).
Right and wrong. unfortunately far too many citizens either are too easily mislead or don't really understand the history and cause/effect of this situation.
They believe the politicians when they say they will secure the borders if we give the illegals amnesty...opps comprehensive immigration reform. The don't know that we have already had SEVEN amnesties and after each the problem gets worse. They don't know the plans (in the 2007 voted bill) call for known gang members to be allowed to stay. They don't know the only proof needed for any illegal is to have someone vouch that they worked for them during the run off period. They don't know that any and all related crimes are also forgiven like ID theft, tax evasion, etc. They don't know the penalties and taxes the illegals will pay are far less then the amount legal immigrants pay. They don't know those 12-20 million illegals will be able to then bring over tens of millions more family members. They don't know that those illegals will be able to use our social programs to a large degree and their kids will have full access to those programs while our veterans and elderly citizens go without. They don't know we are already out of natural resources.
It's all such a joke. If these polls asked a follow-up question like, "If this comprehensive bill were to become law, do you think the feds would actually enforce the law?" -- you'd get a resounding "no." And that's why the public doesn't support amnesties. A hypothetical question infers actual fidelity to the law by the White House, while reality is something entirely different.
Illegal aliens are destroying this Country, and one would have to be almost blind not to see this. How much longer do we have to support these illegal aliens? How much longer do we have to school their illegal alien children? How much longer are we going to let them have our jobs? How much longer are we going to put up with all the crime, stolen identities, forged documents, fake green cards? How much longer are we going to allow these illegal aliens to send money out of this Country and bring our Country down? Oh, amnesty will correct all this. WRONG! Nothing will change except we wouldn't be able to call them illegal aliens any more. Let's get rid of these illegal aliens! Let's get them back to their own Country where they belong!
JUST ENFORCE THE DANG LAW!
Without the illegal alien slaves, wages would have to go UP in order to attract a legal workforce of citizens and legal immigrants. YOU are working to perpetuate slavery.
Liberals forget the New Deal was built upon a 1920's immigration policy. In many ways it was its foundation. When you can not control labor power capital rules. Unions were only able to flourish because of labor shortage. Its easy to see how immigration works in the opposite direction. As unions rose all boats, immigration does the opposite.
Our immigration policy is 100% consistent with rightist economics. Liberals are sometimes their worst enemies. If your ideals are economically liberal you need a tightly controlled immigration policy. Look at the Hilton in Chicago, hotel hardly knows a strike is going on.