New Poll: Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration

U.S. Newswire ^ | 5-3-2006 | Steven Camarota

[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/

[Serenissima Venezia]

Well, passing nothing would be better than passing a guestamnesty bill. That would be impossible to undo later. (ie., after the 2006 elections)

[MissAmericanPie]

Net yet, but that is one answer to the problem of how to make them leave.

[calcowgirl]

Did you hear Jay Leno the other night?

Arnold Schwarzenegger “is blaming man for global warming. 
And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That's so typical. 
Two cyborgs, ‘Oh, let's blame the humans.’” 

[Serenissima Venezia]

It's not hard if you don't have to actually do the work.

So we should do nothing because it might be difficult or hard? That's not quite the principles this country was founded on. (But it is in keeping with what is being taught in our schools.)

[SierraWasp]

Now THAT's what I call a "knee slapper!" (big grin!!!)

[ARCADIA]

What percentage of illegal aliens should be incarcerated?

What percentage of drug dealers, DUI cases, rapists, murders, child porn producers, embezzlers, terrorist, etc. would you want incarcerated? A crime is a crime, you do it you get caught and prosecuted; you are asking a completely irrelevant question.

[antceecee]

It's always America's fault. Just ask a Democrat.

[Serenissima Venezia]

Awesome response! thanks for the ping-a-ling. Some good news for a change!

[lonedawg]

Right on brother, and I'm pretty damn sick of the liberal horsesh@t.

[SCHROLL]

you've got a head like a brick. how many times do people have to say deport them before it sinks in? They can simply write the law that if found guilty, you're gone. Then they only have to hold them long enough to deport them. Does that make you feel better now?

[lonedawg]

He's gona want you to answer his question now!

[lonedawg]

Did you here me , you gota tell him how many to arrest.(the answer's 10,999,999)

[lonedawg]

are you listening to me?

[sinkspur]

I'd really like to know when it became the responsibility of a business to check out the immigration status of an applicant?

An ID system is only as good as its ability to stay ahead of those who would circumvent it. As we've seen, there are ways around the SS checks. I don't believe we're going to be able to avoid some sort of national ID, using RFID encrypted chips that would be impossible to duplicate. Present that ID, run it through a check, and you're good to go. Without it, you can't be hired.

That will give the libertarians apoplexy, but it would be virtually foolproof (until hackers figured a way around it).

[SCHROLL]

wrong again. establish a data base similar to any credit bureau. it includes the name and date of birth associated with any social security number. if they don't match the number is flagged and you've caught your illegal. see how simple that was?

[SCHROLL]

I guess I'm as deaf as he is

[Torie]

It will become the busines of employers to do it, when the law requires it, as it does now. But now, cheap fraudentent documents, do the trick, and the government is in on the game. That needs to change.

That will give the libertarians apoplexy

Since when has THAT bothered you. :)

Let's get real, and make the laws work, and fine tune the laws, to serve America's interests. Let's get real, about who is legal to be hired. And THEN we can discuss who should be legal. As you know, I am not paranoid about illegal Mexicans. I admire their hard working ethic, and think in the LONG term, there will be a huge asset to team America. But let us not play a shell game, and let us have an intelligent system about who is here working, in a system that is works, and who is not. Let us shut down the incentive for masses of folks to run the desert in 110 degrees heat. Let us shut down the system of off the books, and on the books fraudulent document workers.

The ying and the yang.

[sinkspur]

wrong again. establish a data base similar to any credit bureau. it includes the name and date of birth associated with any social security number. if they don't match the number is flagged and you've caught your illegal. see how simple that was?

And if the SS number has been stolen from a dead person and a new portfolio created?

[sweetliberty]

"The prosecution must prove that the employer KNOWINGLY hired an illegal alien, and that means proving a specific state of mind--and that is almost impossible absent an employer confessing."

Well, if he claims to be from Louisville, Ky, the name on his driver's license is Fred Anderson and he has black hair, brown eyes and can't speak a word of English, that would be a pretty good indicator. And there are ways to verify social security numbers, if employers bothered to avail themselves of the technology.

[gpapa]

Would you put these so called "guest workers" ahead of the 3,000,000 or so folks who are trying to enter our country legally?