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/
According to Zogby (who was predicting a Kerry presidency on the morning of the election), my solution is unwanted by Americans.
So, I'm just providing a pressure test for your solution.
If employers have all the paperwork, and pay SS taxes for their employees, proving that the employer knowingly hired illegals would be very difficult.
I would argue that your point has merit, and that perhaps the law needs to be amended to enable employers to quickly and accurately cross-check SSNs. For example, such a system is already in place for gun purchases. I have purchased 2 firearms recently, and in both cases they checked my SSN, name, address, criminal record, record of any domestic violence issues (which is generally not criminal but is in family court), tax records (liability), etc. etc. They did this literally in a few minutes.
Would this be so difficult to implement for employers?? A prospective employer could check the SSN against a database, and confirm that the name matches, the gender matches, the approximate age matches, the location in the country matches, and that the SSN is not in use by 50 other people.
Then, employers might not have much of an excuse.
Part of the problem is that we decided, for purposes of "national security," to make sure that Mexico was a corrupt and backward country--and, hence, in no position to challenge us militarily.
Just one of these self-inflicted problems is painful. I've just ID'd three--and that's not the entirety of the problem.
However, a guest worker program, with enough enforcement, will provide a better situation than the present. Basically, it will remove the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of a specific employee's illegality--instead, the charge will be noncompliance with specific, concrete actions that are the employer's responsibility, and easily proven in court.
How to deal with illegals here? Fine them--heavily--if they choose to register in the States. Make it enough that the trip home to apply from there will look good from a financial and hassle perspective. A fine is not an amnesty.
It will not be perfect. But it's a move that I think is both likely to generate a better situation than the present.
"It costs very little, comparatively speaking. The acquittals come very quickly."
Please direct me to your source for this "fact".
You gota be kidding! Mexico's corrupt and that's our fault!! Man that's just plain STUPID!!Maybe those morons out protesting need to be in Mexico protesting.
If you're here, I ought to be able to hire you. Requiring that I spend time and money to do a variety of checks and, if I fail on one, I can go to jail, is ridiculous.
If the government cracks down too hard on these guys, businesses will just refuse to hire Hispanics altogether, legal or illegal.
The political party responsible for THAT fiasco is going to be out power forever.
This poll is flawed.
The meaning of the word "amnesty" (in various contexts) is debatable, but an "illegal alien" is always just an illegal alien.
I've been giving your question some thought. First, I think there would be serious ex post facto type difficulties making illegal alienhood a felony for those already here. For new arrivals, possibly, but for those who are already here taking their current condition from whatever it is to felonious is probably not going to fly legally.
Second, I'd approach the matter this way - I'd make the conviction of the newly apprehended a matter of deportation with the threat of immediate incarceration as a felon upon return.
Third, for the 12 million or whatever already here I'd offer an amnesty period within which they may go through the existing legal procedures or face immediate deportation. That's within existing law and I don't think we'd have any ex post facto problems with it. They play by the rules, they're in; if not, not. If they have to wait elsewhere while a quota is in operation let that quota be first come, first served (also within existing law).
To stabilize the situation I'd deploy national guard units until a suitable barrier is constructed. Sorry if that looks like an Iron Curtain - it isn't. States have an unquestioned right to the control of both border and immigration and we've lost control of that under the existing conditions.
It isn't a perfect solution but it's better than one side shrieking at the other. IMHO. What do you think?
Attrition is your only weapon.
We've deliberately supported those engaged in corruption, up to and including getting rid of their competition (see: Luis Colosio).
A Mexico governed honestly would likely be able to afford a large and well-equipped military. Maybe they wouldn't seek to have such a military; but our national leadership did not want to take the chance.
Man that's just plain STUPID!!
Yes, it's pretty stupid and shortsighted for us to do that, but we did.
That's too connservative for some folks here. (Cough.)
Some of the rhetoric makes it seem that they resent sharing the loot, if you catch my drift. (Cough-cough.)
Don't stop there... Do like Arnold Schwartzenegger and try to lay "Globular Warming" of on all the rest of us Cauleeforneeuns as some sort of "self-inflicted wound," why don'tcha??? The boomers have never cared for anyone else, so why should anyone feel obligated to care for them??? Only the liberals have been celebrating the unbridled snuffing of two or three generations in the womb, so why should anyone give two hoots or any more "bodies" to make up for that error???
Al Gore was the only one who knew how to re-invent, or re-engineer anything (/sarcasm) and I know no one here gives a second thought about him anymore, right???
Hey! How are you going to find any of these interlopers to fine them ANYTHING??? Get real!!!
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.