Posted on 03/05/2016 9:42:44 AM PST by annalex
Woodside, CA – A new national survey by the American Culture & Faith Institute clarifies exactly what religious conservatives do – and do not – want in a national immigration policy.
The survey examined 20 different strategies for dealing with immigration. All 20 of the policy options were campaign platforms promoted by one or more of the 2016 presidential candidates, as listed on their campaign websites. The candidates who promoted those proposals were not identified for survey respondents.
Policies SAGE Cons Strongly Support
More than four out of five of the politically engaged religious conservatives interviewed said that they would “strongly support” each of five immigration actions tested in the survey. Those approaches were:
There were another five actions that at least half of the politically engaged religious conservatives said they would “strongly support.” Those included increasing the number of immigration enforcement agents (66%); implementing an electronic verification system to reveal the legal status of employees (65%); more tightly regulating and overseeing the Department of Homeland Security (60%); building a wall along the entire border between Mexico and the U.S. (53%); and using a biometric entry-exit system for visas (53%).
The survey identified another six policy approaches that a majority of the politically engaged religious conservatives – a group labeled SAGE Cons, which is an acrostic for Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservatives – supported either strongly or somewhat. The options that received more lukewarm support included the following:
There were another four policy options that a majority of SAGE Cons rejected. Those options called for closing all privately-run immigration detention centers (12% strongly supported this option); reducing the cost of applying for naturalization to all immigrants (11% strong support); funding the return to the US of immigrants who were deported under protest (5%); and providing non-citizen immigrants illegally living in the US with additional benefits funded by the government (2%). All four of these proposals were articulated and supported solely by Democratic candidates.
Consistency between Views of Candidates and Supporters
In assessing the connection between which candidate proposed a particular action and how the respondent felt about that candidate, the overall correlation was fairly consistent. One way of measuring that connection is to evaluate the number a candidate’s immigration policy elements that his votes supported.
Eleven of the policy approaches Ted Cruz has advocated were tested. Of those, a majority of the people who said they would vote for Mr. Cruz were strongly supportive of 10 of the 11. The exception was deporting all undocumented immigrants living illegally in the US (strongly supported by 44% of Cruz voters). In addition, one other policy approach was supported by a majority of the Cruz voters but was not advocated by the Texas Senator: 62% strongly supported tighter regulation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Ten of the policy components Donald Trump has pressed for were tested. Of those, the SAGE Cons who said they would vote for Mr. Trump strongly supported all ten of those policy elements. However, a majority of his backers also strongly supported an additional five policy standards. Those included rescinding the Obama Executive Order that protects undocumented immigrants from being deported (strongly supported by 97%); increasing the use of technology to help police the US-Mexico border (87%); regulating and supervising the Department of Homeland Security more tightly (76%); using a biometric entry/exit system for visas (62%); and limiting immigration only to people who meet merit-based, economic-skill requirements (59%).
Eight of the proposals tested coincide with Marco Rubio’s immigration platform. His backers strongly support only five of those eight policies, and also strongly support four options offered by other candidates which he has not backed. The gap between Mr. Rubio’s pitch and the commitments his voters strongly support were rescinding the president’s Executive Order that protects undocumented immigrants from deportation (83% strongly support that action); ending federal funding for sanctuary cities (77%); ending government-funded benefits for undocumented immigrants (74%); and tighter oversight of DHS (58%).
In addition, the survey revealed that the only immigration stand endorsed by either Democratic candidate in the race that was also strongly supported by SAGE Cons was tighter regulation of the Department of Homeland Security. That idea was strongly embraced by 60% of the politically engaged religious conservatives, even though it is a proposal from Bernie Sanders, the self-described Socialist Democrat. Four other policies that were embraced by either Mr. Sanders or Hillary Clinton were strongly supported by no more than 12% of the SAGE Cons.
Relative Impact of Immigration Policy on Votes
After providing feedback on each of the twenty immigration policies, without being told which ones each of the candidates embraced, respondents were then asked to indicate which candidate’s overall immigration policy they favored. Immigration policies most closely coincided with voter support for Ted Cruz: 90% of the people that voted for him said they liked his immigration views best. Three-quarters of Marco Rubio’s voters (77%) indicated that they liked his immigration plank the most. Interestingly, although Donald Trump has received substantial media coverage for his controversial immigration stands, only half of his supporters (49%) stated that they liked his plan the best among the various options.
Ben Carson, a favorite among SAGE Cons who has struggled since his campaign underwent a major shake-up two months ago, drew support for his immigration plan from 81% of his voters – a higher proportion than any of the five remaining GOP candidates other than Ted Cruz. (John Kasich, the other contender, drew just 1% of the vote from SAGE Cons, rendering the reactions to his immigration plan from those supporters statistically unreliable.)
SAGE Cons Want Real Policy Change
In explaining the meaning of the survey results, lead researcher George Barna noted that the politically engaged religious conservatives clearly want substantial change in the nation’s immigration policies. “If recent patterns hold true, more than four out of five SAGE Con adults will turn out to vote. Immigration reform is one of the issues they care about. And they want our next president to implement an extensive slate of reforms regarding that issue. The survey showed that they strongly endorse 10 specific policies for change, and are generally supportive of 16 transitions in how we handle immigration.”
Asked if the widely reported anger and frustration of conservative Republicans means they would adopt any changes put on the table, Barna firmly dismissed that notion. “These voters have a well-defined philosophy of governance and are seeking proposals that square with that outlook. They are not simply embracing any change offered. The data show that they overwhelmingly rejected the proposals put forth by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, without being told those policies came from the Democratic candidates. The policies recommended by the Democrats simply don’t fit within the worldview and political framework of the SAGE Cons.”
Barna also pointed out that there is some overlap between the positions taken by the three remaining significant GOP candidates: Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Rubio. “All three gentlemen have proposed better enforcement of existing immigration laws, upgrading the number of immigration agents, using electronic employment verification systems, and deporting undocumented immigrants living illegally in the US. With the exception of that last idea, SAGE Con voters are strongly in favor of those strategies. Overall, there is more in common than is unique about the immigration strategies that Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump are advocating, while Mr. Rubio’s approach has some overlap but some divergence as well.”
About the Research
The survey was conducted online through the longitudinal panel of SAGE Cons respondents developed by American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI), a division of United in Purpose, a not-for-profit located in northern California. The survey includes responses from 1,500 SAGE Cons collected between January 26 and February 8, 2016.
“SAGE Cons” is a label used to describe adults who are Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservatives. These individuals satisfy a set of standards regarding their political and religious beliefs and behaviors and have agreed in 2015 to participate in multiple surveys over an 18-month period related to the 2016 election. This panel is the first of its kind among conservative voters who are active in their Christian faith, politically conservative, and engaged in the political process.
ACFI is a non-partisan research organization that does not endorse candidates. As part of United in Purpose its objective is to educate people about the connection between American culture and the Christian faith, and to encourage Christians to play a more active, informed, and philosophically consistent part in the political process. For more information about ACFI, UiP, or this research, visit www.culturefaith.com.
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates; all confessions are welcome.
 A group of migrants walk on the road near a border line between Serbia and Croatia, near the village of Berkasovo, Serbia, Monday, Oct. 19, 2015. DARKO VOJINOVIC , THE ASSOCIATED PRESS |
The woman seems to have total responsibility for three small children..
The healthy young people are asses.
Observe: a barefooted woman carrying children and bags, her head covered by a scarf, is walking in freezing rain.
Seven young men are walking next to her. Nicely equipped with running shoes and warm jackets. Some have additional protection from the rain. No help has been given the woman. The men don’t seem to be embarrassed being photographed.
This is all we need to know about the middle-eastern refugees flooding Europe.
Most of the RNC/GOP is owned lock, stock and barrel by The Cheap Labor Express.
They have been actively working against the wishes of the people for decades.
Enabling the illegal alien inundation while giving lip service to national security.
GWB reduced border and interior enforcement AFTER 9/11. Totally unforgivable.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson defunded the Secure Fence Act with an amendment in a subsequent bill.
They will burn the party to the ground rather than let us elect a President who would enforce the laws.
They are arrogant, they are far from stupid or clueless.
They have been playing conservatives for years and years.
We have only had amnesty candidates since the last amnesty.
It was not accidental. It was quite intentional.
They still think they can prevent us from electing a President who will enforce the laws and borders. They want to deny us the ability to stop the illegal alien inundation.
The most important thing to the RNC/GOP is keeping the people pipeline operating.
The Cheap Labor Express has already paid them for an amnesty candidate.
I believe they are willing to do anything to block us from keeping the rule of law and our country.
The good news: both Cruz and Trump, the two successful so far presidential candidates stand out for nationalism.
The bad news: the front runner is deserving all the ridicule he gets for his childish behavior and apparent lack of sincerity.
Reality Identifies the Immigration Standards Libberal Elites want:
Millions more 3rd world people who have nothing to offer beyond kickbacks to UN lowlifes...
Reality Identifies the Immigration Standards Libberal Elites want:
Millions more 3rd world people who have nothing to offer beyond kickbacks to UN lowlifes...
Give us your criminal, your diseased, your trouble makers...
Not only should islam be prevented from coming to America, the existing mosques should be demolished. islam is not a religion any more than Nazism is/was.
It’s a totalitarian political system totally at odds with the Constitution that has religious components.
Picture = 1,000 words.
And none of them compliment the dirtbag men walking along, their free hands in their pockets, their heads covered to shield them from the elements while a lone woman carries/escorts three babies and lugs bags of supplies.
But Pope Francis thinks this is grand, according to another thread.
“The 20 most violent cities were all in Latin America.”
Ejemplos:
Guatemala, Guatemala
Homicides [in 2011]: 2,248
Inhabitants: 3,014,060
Chihuahua, Mexico
Homicides [in 2011]: 690
Inhabitants: 831,693
Caracas Venezuela
Homicides [in 2011]: 3,164
Inhabitants: 3,205,463
Juárez, Mexico
Homicides [in 2011]: 1,974
Inhabitants: 1,335,890
Acapulco, Mexico
Homicides [in 2011]: 1,029
Inhabitants: 804,412
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Homicides [in 2011]: 1,143
Inhabitants: 719,447
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1#ixzz3han7YETo
In their lifetimes, residents of those cities stand about a 4% to 10% chance of getting murdered.
You don’t want to import a murder problem like those countries have.
The USA is systemically and purposely de industrializing at a rapid pace. As such there is no longer any reason to take in immigrants of any kind, legal or otherwise.
Islam is a religion; we don’t have to like it to agree on that. When the constitution was written “free exercise of religion” meant that the Anglicans and the Congregationalists should tolerate one another. At this point, I don’t think mosque closures can occur under the Constitution. However, immigration tests can and should happen, including religious tests. In my humble opinion.
As Christians, we are asked to love our neighbor, and that includes loving our enemy. But I don't think that able bodied men whose culture is incompatible with ours should be granted an open door policy. Especially when we put our military in harm's way sorting our Syrian factions. Why wouldn't these seven men go back and fight for their country?
Especially when we have our own, in certain places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
