Posted on 04/03/2006 9:33:38 AM PDT by Jo Nuvark
Grassroots Conservatives Weigh In on Immigration Debate
Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 3, 2006 at 7:00 am
Over the weekend, GOPUSA began conducting a survey of grassroots conservatives to get their feelings on the immigration debate and the priorities of the Republican Party. The final results are still being tallied, but so far, nearly 2,400 members of GOPUSA’s Grassroots Survey Team have participated.
The responses are amazing and indicate a thoughtful approach to the issues of illegal immigration and a potential guestworker program. Despite the heated nature of the debate and efforts by the left and even some Republican leaders to label pro-border security advocates as “anti-immigrant,” the grassroots Republican base has a clear understanding of the issue, and responses reveal a possible track to moving the debate forward.
The current survey results are surprising in that, as a whole, they don’t reflect the media’s portrayal of the right as a group which simply wants to “throw the illegals out.” On the contrary, respondents provided input on what they feel the priorities of the debate should be and also addressed key philosophical questions such as “What is amnesty?”
First… priorities. As I’ve stressed over and over again, including my recent article What is Amnesty? What is Punishment?, I believe the best legislative approach to this debate is to not be “comprehensive” about it. There is absolutely no reason to try to fix everything at once. This simply leads to the debate getting bogged down. Focus on border security first, then address the problem of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Our first priority should be making the border hard for terrorists to cross, not easy.
When asked what portion of the immigration debate Congress should focus on first, only 26% of respondents felt that the approach should be “comprehensive” or address the elements of border security, a guestworker plan, and disposition of illegal aliens. 61% of the respondents felt that Congress should focus on border security first.
Respondents were mixed on what they felt would be the best way to prevent more people from entering the country illegally. The vast majority (69%) felt a combination of efforts would be desirable. Leading individuals methods included a physical barrier (7%), increased penalties for employers who hire illegals (7%), troops on the border (4%), immediate deportation (3%), and increased border patrol agents (2%).
On the issue of deportation, GOPUSA asked the survey team where they believe “deportation of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. is realistic.” 53% of the respondents answered no, while 37% answered yes. Another 10% were not sure. Regarding penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens, 58% felt a combination of fines, criminal sentences, and loss of business license was appropriate. 33% felt fines were the appropriate penalty. 6% selected criminal sentences, while 4% chose loss of business license.
On the issue of penalties to those who offer humanitarian aid to illegal aliens, the results were mixed. A plurality of respondents (44%) “do not support making it illegal to offer humanitarian aid to illegal aliens.” 32% felt a misdemeanor charge should be filed against those individuals, while 24% felt there should be felony charges.
Results get very interesting when talking about amnesty and a guestworker program. First, GOPUSA asked respondents if the U.S. needed legal guestworkers. 47% answered yes to the question, while 32% answered no. Another 21% were not sure.
Next, GOPUSA presented a series of definitions for “amnesty” and asked respondents to pick the one that more closely matched their views. 42% picked the following: “Amnesty means a track to citizenship or permanent residency for illegal aliens outside the legal process established for others who wish to enter the country .” 30% selected: “Amnesty means allowing those who entered America illegally to remain without significant penalties on both employers and illegal aliens.” 22% chose the following: “Amnesty means allowing those who entered America illegally to remain even if penalties are imposed on both employers and illegal aliens.” Another 7% had a different definition.
When the results of those questions are considered, I believe a track begins to emerge which could help drive the debate to a workable solution. Most respondents feel that mass deportation is unrealistic. However, they also believe in fundamental fairness and the rule of law. They believe that guestworkers are needed, but they are smart enough to realize the difference between someone who actually wants to be an “immigrant” (someone who wants to come to America to be an American) and someone who just wants to work and return to his/her own country. The point that seems to raise the anger meter is that whenever a guestworker program is discussed, it always includes provisions on how the program will be a path to citizenship. There is already a path to citizenship, and respondents don’t think it should be circumvented by people who came to America illegally.
Thus, for a guestworker plan to succeed, it should be limited to “guestworkers” and not be some kind of amnesty plan or special track to citizenship. It should simply be a plan that tracks people who wish to work in America, sets appropriate work durations, and then mandates some type of renewal or return to home country. It should NOT be a path to citizenship.
90% of respondents felt that any immigration reform proposal should include “a provision which requires illegal aliens to read and understand English.” 97% favor legislation “making English the official language of the United States.”
One thing is clear: grassroots Republicans are thoughtful about this issue. They want results, and they don’t feel that enough has been done with the existing laws on the books. Thus, there is frustration about this issue that the core concern of border security is being pushed aside for politics. That is wrong and the grassroots base sees it. Politics and the prospects for future votes should never steer security policy. A fundamental function of the federal government is national security… not trying to garner favor with a particular voting bloc.
[...Those seeking "opportunity" (at the EXPENSE of the TAX-PAYING CITIZENRY) are neither wanted nor welcome...]
Amen!
I made my views known although I doubt they will be welcome or even used.
I wanted to thank you for your feisty commitment, you are a proud vet and patriot and it shows.
Also for your active participation in our group and your great posts!
Keep 'em comin' Tonk!
BTTT
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.