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/
Fair enough, but let me see if I understand your simple question. Here it is: What percentage [of illegals] do you think would get stopped for any infraction of the law?
My direct answer is, it doesn't matter. The correct way to deal with the illegal alien problem has nothing to do with people getting stopped for infractions of the law.
Am I understanding your question correctly?
We don't need to make them felons but I wouldn't mind. We could, after all, enforce the laws already written and put Congress back out on recess.
OK, you now have indicated that you desire a prison population about six times the current population of 2.2 million. (2.2 million plus 11 million = 13.2 million)
So, you're going to have to build a LOT of new prisons, and hire a LOT of new guards for them.
Ugly problem: you might be able to get enough BP/ICE agents to cover the border and stop them from coming in (well, slow them down some), or you might be able to get enough BOP guards to cover the prisons.
Problem is, you won't get both.
No. Better to make it a felony to knowingly employ an ILLEGAL alien.
GOTCHA! Keep going ,I think you got him!
Behold a dead horse:
"OK, let's assume we make illegally being in the United States a felony. "
Dear Mr. Beat a Dead Horse: The House leaders have indicated the felony for "illegal presence" will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
Behold a Dead Horse.
you don't prosecute them - you pass the same kind of asset forfeiture laws that we have regarding drugs. you pass a 3 strikes law, after 2 warnings having been shown to hire illegals, you seize their business assets and then they have to sue to get them back.
Yes the Republicans don't even know how to stand when they would have 70% of the American people behind them if they just stood up for securing our borders and meant it.
No, you're not.
The original question: what percentage of illegals do you propose to incarcerate under this law?
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.
The law requires that you answer any charges and present your argument for consideration by our court system.
That costs money. That also requires weighing the cost of defense for breaking the law versus obeying the law.
How many do you think would prefer to fight in court?
Just give me hard numbers, no percentages.
It sounds like a fix is in order. What has Bush said about the issue of fraudulent ID's? The fact is, is that there was a conscious decision to deemphasize the issue of fraudulent ID's, with a wink and a nod. What Bush wants, I think, is to leverage doing something about the obvious holes, into getting his guest worker plan. Do you disagree with my take on this?
Or how many cases could the ACLU pay for before they ran out of money.
You think that asset forfeiture without a corresponding criminal conviction is a good thing?
You sound like you're an illegal immigrant from either Cuba or China. Get the f*** out of my country, you commie bastard.
Mind if I use that? :)
I guess you never heard of the IRS, EEOC, EPA, or any other of myriad Federal agencies who field vast hosts of bureaucrats to, both in principle and practice, harass, fine and prosecute business?
Wrong again. How many would fit in a room without presenting an undue hardship? Just give me hard numbers.
I did.
Dead Horse:
The proposal to make illegal presence a felony is DEAD.
Are you too busy blogging to ever actually read the news?
Please stop beating a dead horse and start discussing some real issues.
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.