For Undocumented Americans, NOW
Because just one Undocumented American
can make a big difference in our economy
Posted on 05/03/2006 7:45:44 PM PDT by nckerr
WASHINGTON, May 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (i.e., avoiding the words "amnesty" or "illegal alien"), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives' enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies. Complete results are on line at:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html.
-- On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.
-- While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, only 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.
-- When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told that it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement, while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
-- Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.
-- When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, though not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
-- There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself. Exceptions included Hispanics, 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea, and the most liberal voters (progressives), 54 percent of whom approved of it.
-- When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations, while 56 percent want the House approach.
-- But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent to 30 percent.
-- One reason the public does not like legalization is that they are skeptical of the need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 77 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.
-- Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.
-- The public also does not accept the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 71 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan research organization which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
LOL!! I like that one! :-)
Mind if I use that? :)
Feel free. Go to it! Time to get activist.
Uh, wrong. The law requires that the PROSECUTION present their argument. None is needed from the defense.
That costs money. That also requires weighing the cost of defense for breaking the law versus obeying the law.
It costs very little, comparatively speaking. The acquittals come very quickly.
How many do you think would prefer to fight in court?
At least 75%. People are a hell of a lot more tenacious than you seem to believe them to be.
Also, understand that support for employer sanctions will collapse when the prosecutors, in their desire to push for maximum convictions, go after the people least likely to hire a good lawyer--the average middle class schlubs who say "Yeah! Right on!" to the talk show host railing against illegal immigration as they pay their gardener in cash.
My guess is about the time you hit 1000 there will be a long line headed south, so you just let them go. NOW! we can use all that prison money to build that damn fence.
Because just one Undocumented American
can make a big difference in our economy
So I wonder what a real pollster like Rasmussen results would be on the same subject?
It's going to be awfully difficult to salvage the Republican base by the November elections, but I believe that listening to the American people on this one can truly swing the pendulum.
Unlike the cases you cited, all the employer needs to do in this case is to stand their ground and fight--and any competent lawyer would tell them to do exactly that.
"Fining employers sounds easy in principle, but is extremely difficult in practice."
Especially when you have an administration that sides with the criminals.
You got the spineless b@stards pegged!
Lawyers are expensive. The going rate is about 300 bucks an hour in California, on average.
I need a million americans to help me invade mexico.We will have a million man march in mexico city and wave our american flags in their face.
Why? That's less than 0.01% of the illegal population.
Understand that the illegal alien has already demonstrated enough tenacity to risk his or her life to get into this country--a jail sentence would have to be both severe and extremely likely to get them to voluntarily walk back out.
As I point out in my book, it's a remarkable coincidence that in our "can do" nation the one thing that we are unable to do is enforce our immigration laws.
Actually, we're a "can do" nation with a "refuse to do" government.
I wouldn't hire that cheap B@stard!
These cases are easy to defend. And there will be cut-rate lawyers specializing in these cases because they ARE so easy to defend.
Simple question. Nobody wants to answer it. Almost like they know that the answer will show why this particular idea isn't a good one.
"This" law? Your original question wasn't about some particular law.
And the thing is, several people (including me) have answered it. The answer is none, zip, nada. Nobody needs to be forcibly deported. OK? Zero arrests, incarcerations or deportations, including the Taco Bell dog. With me on this?
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.