 |
|||
  |
 |
 |
 |
|
Contact: Steven A. Camarota
New Zogby Poll on Amnesty Poll Examines Support Among Different Constituencies
WASHINGTON (September 4, 2001) — During their summit this week, presidents Vicente Fox and George W. Bush will be discussing a possible amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is releasing today the first poll that examines in detail how various segments of the population would view an amnesty. Using neutral language, the Zogby International poll of likely voters also explores how supporting an amnesty might affect votes for President Bush and members of Congress in the future among different groups of constituents. While overall the poll finds little support for an amnesty, it does show some significant differences among groups. The strongest opposition is found among conservatives, moderates, and voters in union households.
Clearly, an amnesty for illegal immigrants would be only one issue among many considered by voters when deciding how to cast their ballots. By supporting an amnesty, Republicans may run the risk of having some of their conservative base sit home on election day and of alienating moderates, all without attracting significant Hispanic support. Democrats, too, may alienate moderates and also may reduce support among some union voters, who need to turn out in large numbers if Democrats are to regain the House of Representatives and White House.
The three questions dealing with how candidates’ support for an amnesty might affect votes are also asked in as straightforward a manner as possible. Moreover, these questions specifically give respondents the option of saying that a candidate’s position on amnesty would have no effect on their vote. By using neutral language and by not forcing those taking the survey to say that an amnesty would have an impact on their vote, this survey should provide a good deal of insight into voter preferences on this important issue. Intensity of Opinion. The fact that opponents of amnesty seem to feel more strongly in their opposition to amnesty than supporters do about their endorsement is one of the most important findings of this survey. This greater intensity of feeling on the part of amnesty opponents means that it is not simply that most Americans are against it, but also that it might affect how they vote in 2002 and 2004. Thus, supporting an amnesty seems only to hurt and not help the president or Democrats and Republicans in Congress who might support it. The table shows that in every group examined here, a plurality indicate that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports amnesty. In contrast, very few voters indicate that they would be more likely to vote for the president if he supported amnesty and the same holds true for members of both parties in Congress. This is also the case for those who think an amnesty is a bad idea. Whatever its merits as a matter of public policy, it seems that politicians who oppose amnesty are likely to derive much more political benefit from their opposition than are candidates who support it. Union Members. The opposition among persons in union households is one of the most interesting and in some ways the most surprising findings, because most union leaders strongly support an amnesty and have been actively making the case for it to their members for over a year. Yet, only a little over one-third (36 percent) of those in union households think an amnesty is a good idea. This strongly suggests that union leaders have a long way to go before their members agree with them on this issue. The fact that 60 percent of voters in union households oppose an amnesty and that 33 percent of all persons in union households said they would be less likely to vote for a Democrat who supports it should be a matter of some concern to Democrats. It opens up the very real possibility that Republican congressional candidates who are opposed to amnesty could use the issue as a way to attract union members in much the same way that Ronald Reagan was able to get votes from union members who made up a significant share of the so-called "Reagan Democrats." Hispanics. The even division among Hispanic voters in the survey may come as a surprise to some because, of any segment of the population, Hispanics are often assumed to be overwhelmingly in favor of an amnesty. It is generally assumed that one of the reasons President Bush may support an amnesty is that he hopes to attract Hispanic voters by doing so. However, this survey provides no evidence that supporting an amnesty will help the president with Hispanic Americans. If anything, it seems to hurt him. Hispanics in the survey responded two-to-one that they would be less likely to vote for the president if he supports an amnesty (see table). These findings are consistent with other surveys that have tried to measure the opinion of Hispanics. A number of polls have found that Hispanics, like other Americans, are concerned about immigration and think that the current level is too high. Thus, its not so unexpected that roughly half of all Hispanic voters think an amnesty is a bad idea and that many indicate they would be less willing to vote for a candidate who supports one. It is also important to remember that the survey is confined to likely voters and that a very large share of Hispanic adults are not citizens. Since they cannot vote, they are not included in this survey. The opinions of non-citizen Hispanics, many of whom may benefit from an amnesty, could differ significantly from their citizen counterparts. Of course, politically, it is votes that matter, which is why surveys of this kind are confined to likely voters. Certainly no amnesty beneficiary would be able to get citizenship and vote in time for the 2004 election. It should also be pointed out that it would be incorrect to say that Hispanic voters are against an amnesty — they are evenly divided. What does seem to be the case is that those Hispanic voters who oppose an amnesty feel much more strongly about their opposition than those who support it feel about their endorsement. As a result, despite being evenly divided on the issue overall, more Hispanic voters indicate they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports amnesty. None of this means that Republican efforts to attract Hispanic voters are misplaced. Instead, these results simply suggest that supporting an amnesty is not the best way to attract Hispanic voters. Moderates and Independents. As already mentioned, self-identified moderates think an amnesty is a bad idea by a margin of 59 to 32 percent. Also, between 38 and 43 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Bush or Democrats in Congress if they supported an amnesty, compared to between 5 and 8 percent who said that they would be more likely to vote for Bush if he supported amnesty. Similar results exist among self-identified independents (see table). This is significant politically because moderates and independents often decide elections, especially in this era when the electorate is so closely divided. While some may imagine that amnesty is a way to appeal to individuals in the middle of the political spectrum, this survey indicates that the opposite is true. It seems that opposing an amnesty may be a way of winning support from this critically important segment of the population. Conclusion A second important finding is that although supporters of amnesty have been very effective in lining up support among union, business, church, and other leaders, this elite support has not translated into public support. Of course, none of this shows that an amnesty is sound or unsound as a matter of public policy. However, whatever its merits, it would certainly be better that the public is first convinced of the wisdom of such a major change in policy before granting permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants. It is always better in a democracy for public policy to reflect public opinion. Advocates of amnesty certainly are trying hard to convince the public. One tactic that should probably not be employed is to use euphemisms such as "regularization," "legalization," or "normalization" rather than amnesty. Tactics such as this only make the public more cynical, especially since opponents as well as journalists will quickly point out that this is deceptive. If an amnesty has merit, then it should be debated as openly as possible. The results of this survey indicate that supporters of amnesty clearly have their work cut out for them across a broad range of the population. # # # The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center is not affiliated with any other organization.
|
