Posted on 05/03/2007 11:12:36 AM PDT by AuntB
A year ago, many Beltway pundits were stunned when May Day protests for illegal immigrants failed to move public policy in the expected manner. In fact, following the rallies, it was the Beltway debate that shifted as politicians realized the public saw the issue in fundamentally different terms than Congress. ADVERTISEMENT
A year has gone by and a smaller set of rallies were held yesterday, but public opinion has not changed.
When given a choice, 48% of Americans would opt for a Congressional candidate who "favors building a barrier along the Mexican border and forcing illegal aliens to leave the United States." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 36% prefer a candidate promising to "expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs."
Sixty percent (60%) of Americans believe that immigration reform should include laws requiring that all government documents be printed in English. Just 29% disagree.
Republicans favor the candidate focused on controlling the border by a two-to-one margin. Democrats are more evenly divided. Among those not affiliated with either major party (a growing number), 47% prefer the candidate focused on controlling the border while 35% take the opposite view.
The overall results are essentially unchanged from attitudes measured a year ago. They are consistent with the general public view that it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws.
The latest survey also found that most Americans (56%%) oppose granting citizenship to the child of an illegal alien born in the United States. Just 35% believe citizenship should be granted.
By a similar margin, 55% to 29%, American adults oppose granting citizenship to parents of children born in the United States.
Last year, the immigration debate caught America's political class completely off guard and most national politicians made an incorrect assessment concerning the nature of the debate. The initial discussions in Washington implied a debate that was either pro-immigration or anti-immigration. Those who favored some form of legalization or earned citizenship were pictured in official Washington as pro-immigrant while those who favored border control were thought to be anti-immigrant (or perhaps racist). However, Rasmussen Reports data showed an entirely different picture.
Most Americans who favored enforcement first policies also favored a welcoming policy for legal immigration. In other words, most Americans recognized that our nation is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. They wanted to uphold both aspects of our national heritage. Just as important, they want political leaders to remember the second part of that heritage--that we're a nation of laws.
During 2006, state-by-state polling found support for an enforcement-first policy topping 60% in all but one of thirty-three states.
This national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 30-May 1, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
bump
Now, here is the proper place for your venting........
Are you listening George W?
You can not start making illegals leave unless you “START”. People here need to start DEMANDING that they leave. No more talking and BSing us.
sw
I find it amazing that the Nancy and the Nutroots, aka Congress, which is supposedly so in tune with implementing our wishes regarding the Iraqi War have turned a complete and utter deaf ear to our cries for a secure border and the deportation of illegals already in this country.
Borders and illegal immigration are an object lesson on how the US is NOT a nation of laws.
If we don't control our borders we are not a nation, we are just a piece of land waiting for someone to take us over.
In one ear and out the other....
Agreed!
This seems to be an extremely accurate poll, and unlike many, there are clear matters polled here.
The Wall St. Journal had similar poll results recently but from what I understand they didn't publish it. That's probably because it didn't fit into their open border agenda.
ping
Hello out there, is anyone in power listening!!
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!!
We would all do well to remember the facts presented last night by Robert Rector of Heritage: 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. What is the cost of amnesty? The fiscal cost of amnesty for illegal aliens in the country?
ROBERT RECTOR, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Illegal aliens cost a lot at the present time, but if you give them amnesty, one effect is that they will all have access to Social Security, Medicare, this program called Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid when they retire, OK?
So the real impact of amnesty would be — let’s say you have 12 million people. You give them amnesty. The impact of that, the net requirement cost alone would be negative $2.5 to $3 trillion. Negative $2.5 to $3 trillion.
DOBBS: $2.5 to $3 million?
RECTOR: Yes. And that’s with 12 million. You’re taking 10 million people and putting them into Social Security. That is one of the biggest budget impacts — that is the single budget — biggest budget impact I’ve seen in a quarter of a century. It’s fantastically expensive, and it is fantastically irresponsible for Congress to be contemplating that, and they don’t have a clue in the world, they don’t care what it will cost. RECTOR: You know what? If you look at low-skill immigrants, OK, which most illegals are, in fact, in every stage of their life cycle, they take more in benefits than they pay in, in taxes.
Each — each low-skilled immigrant — and illegals are predominantly low-skilled immigrants — that comes across to the United States, if they bring a family with them, the net cost that they impose on the taxpayers, benefits received minus taxes, is over $1 million over their lifetimes. It’s fantastically expensive.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/ldt.02.html
It looks like Harry the Clown may attempt to ram amnesty through without holding any hearings or going through the committee process. So it’s obvious they could care less what impact such a scheme would have on the rest of us.
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.