Skip to comments.Legalization vs. Enforcement What the American People Think on Immigration
Posted on 04/05/2013 7:25:00 AM PDT by AuntB
WASHINGTON (April 5, 2013) This Backgrounder reports the results of a new Pulse Opinion Research poll, which finds that most Americans want immigration laws enforced. When given a choice between reducing the illegal immigrant population by enforcing the law or a conditional legalization, the public strongly prefers enforcement. This is especially true of Republican voters.
GOP leaders who support legalization risk alienating not only the general public, but the overwhelming majority of their own party. We also find that a majority of voters and Republican voters in particular say they are less likely to vote for their member of Congress or a political party that supports legalization. Unlike many other polls, this poll uses neutral language and avoids the false choice of conditional legalization vs. mass deportation.
* Of likely voters, 72 percent said they support reducing the illegal immigrant population by requiring employers to check workers' legal status, fortifying the border, and getting the cooperation of local police. A total of 54 percent said they strongly support this approach.
* There is also support for legalizing illegal immigrants with 61 percent of likely voters indicating they support giving illegal immigrants legal status if they pay a fine, study English, and undergo a background check. Twenty-nine percent said they "strongly support" this approach.
* When we asked which of the two approaches they prefer, 58 percent of likely voters said they support reducing the illegal immigrant population through enforcement, while just 31 percent said they prefer legalization with the conditions listed above.
* Supporting legalization is politically risky. Of likely voters, 56 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a member of Congress who supported legalization, while just 27 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a member who supports legalization a 29 percentage-point spread.
* A sample of 616 likely Republican voters found that 88 percent said they support reducing the illegal immigrant population by requiring employers to check workers' legal status, fortifying the border, and getting the cooperation of local police. A total of 77 percent said they "strongly support" this approach.
* Of likely Republican voters, 47 percent said they support giving illegal immigrants legal status if they pay a fine, study English, and undergo a background check. Only 18 percent "strongly support" this approach.
* When we asked which of the two approaches they prefer, 82 percent of Republicans said they support reducing the illegal immigrant population, while just 12 percent said they support legalization with conditions.
* Supporting legalization is politically very risky for Republican politicians. Of likely Republican voters, 79 percent said they would be less likely to vote for their member of Congress who supported legalization, while just 8 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote a member who supported legalization a 71 percentage-point spread.
* A number of conservative evangelical leaders have endorsed the idea of legalizing illegal immigrants. However, among self-identified white evangelicals, enforcement is by far the most popular option: 79 percent said they preferred reducing the illegal immigrant population by enforcing the law vs. 13 percent who supported legalization with conditions.
Designing a survey is never easy. But in recent months many survey companies and organizations have asked extremely one-sided immigration questions that simply do not reflect the position of those advocating enforcement. Our poll avoids this problem by asking questions that actually reflect the policy debate. We first asked the public whether they would like the law enforced and the illegal immigrant population reduced. We then asked if they would support a conditional legalization. Finally, we asked which approach they prefer. All survey questions can be found in the table at the end of the Backgrounder.
The questions asked avoid the false choice between deporting all illegal immigrants which no political leader is advocating and a conditional legalization. The survey uses neutral language, avoiding terms like "amnesty", "illegal alien", and "undocumented". The findings strongly indicate that enforcement is very popular with the public and the preferred way to deal with illegal immigration.
A good example of a problematic question was found in the exit poll from the 2012 presidential election conducted by Edison Research for U.S. television news networks and the Associated Press.1 The poll asked "Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be: Offered a chance to apply for legal status or be deported to the country they came from." This question adds a condition of "working" on legalization and it also further skews the results by making the legalization sound reasonable by using the phase "be given a chance", while putting no such qualifiers on the enforcement option. Worse, the question itself did not represent the actual stated position of the Republican presidential candidate.
Governor Mitt Romney stated clearly during the second presidential debate that he was "not in favor of rounding up people". Yet this is what Edison Research asked. Romney made it clear that he wanted to enforce the law and encourage illegal immigrants to return home.2 But Edison Research entirely ignored the candidate's stated position and instead put in the position of deporting most illegal immigrants. It is not clear why Edison or the news outlets that contracted the company to conduct the poll did not ask a question that reflected Romney's position.
A recent poll by the Brookings Institution is also problematic in that it used biased language, asking voters to choose between these options: "secure our borders and arrest and deport all those who are here illegally" or "both secure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S."3 Again, the question presents the choice between "earned" citizenship versus "deport all". Since no major politician or pro-enforcement group is advocating deporting all illegal immigrants, it is very odd that Brookings chose this wording. But the biased nature of the poll makes the results largely meaningless.
What the presidential exit poll and the Brookings poll do demonstrate is that in general the public does not want mass deportations. But the new Pulse Opinion Research poll shows that, if given the choice between conditional legalization vs. enforcing the law and reducing the illegal immigration population, enforcement is the overwhelming choice of the American people.
This is the most meaningful measure of public sentiment with regard to enforcement because this is the approach that is actually being advocated by supporters of enforcement. Enforcement advocates in and out of Congress want to reduce the illegal immigrant population by enforcing the law, including requiring employers to verify the legal status of workers, controlling the border, and getting the cooperation of local police departments. This is the question that should be asked of voters.
By asking questions that actually reflect the real policy choices being debated in Congress, and avoiding the biased questions of so many polls, the Pulse Opinion Research poll reported here provides a much clearer and more accurate picture of what the American people want on immigration. It shows that while there is certainly some support for legalization and citizenship, most Americans want the law enforced and illegal immigrants to return to their home countries. One may disagree with the idea of enforcement. But if pollsters are to provide an accurate picture of what the public thinks, they must ask questions that reflect the policy debate. It is our hope that this poll will help to correct this situation by demonstrating a more reasonable way of asking questions about illegal immigration.
The poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and is a national survey of 1,443 likely voters conducted March 26-27, 2013, with a margin of error of +/-3% overall and +/-4% for Republicans. Question wording is provided in the table.
Who in their right mind would expect anything different with a new immigration law?
Suggestion for May 5, 2013 Street Poster:
“AMNESTY FOR MEXICANS, NO!
HOSTILITY TO MEXICANS, YE$$$$$$$$$$!”
Deny them everything and they'll go back voluntarily.
“WHERE do we go to get our Amnesty?”
Illegal border crossings have doubled, and possibly even tripled, since the latest congressional push began toward comprehensive immigration reform.
[snip]Gohmert said this is a repeat of what happened along our southern border following the amnesty granted to illegals in 1986.
Thats exactly what happened in 1986. It is exactly what is happening now, just from talking about amnesty. One of the border patrolmen said that when theyve apprehended some, theyve said, Where do we go to get our amnesty? he said. Theyve heard about it. Its drawing them in here, and weve even got to quit talking about it until this administration can do better than getting one-third of those who are crossing illegally. Thats not a secure border.
Listen to the audio of ...Sean Hannity as he tries to convince US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to join with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul to support a form of Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Senator Cruz says no to Amnesty, no path to citizenship, no green card for illegals! Some of you may want to caution him on expanding legal immigration, but for now we need you to call and write Senator Cruz to thank him and encourage him.
Please use your own words to thank Senator Cruz for speaking out against a path to citizenship or green card Amnesty for illegal aliens! Please encourage him to continue to fight against Amnesty! Let him know he has your support!
Article and Audio
Ted Cruz Vows To Oppose Any Path To Legalization for Undocumented Immigrants
ALL immigration must be stopped until the unemployment rate drops to 5%.
Much more accurate survey than the ones quoted on Liberal and RINO Media.... although I am a little taken aback by the articles comment on “people not wanting illegals rounded up and deported”.....it is Amnesty to not deport all Illegal Aliens. I want all Illegal Aliens rounded up and deported
It does point out the political suicide for the GOP to support Amnesty
ATTENTION! EAST COAST READERS! RALLY AGAINST AMNESTY!
This is a Reminder of our NY ICE Counter Protest
THIS Saturday, April 6, 2013, in New Jersey.
WHAT: Counter Protest of Illegal Alien Amnesty in New Jersey That Will Be Sponsored by Obama’s “Organizing for Action” Group
WHEN: April 6th, 2013 (*THIS* Saturday) at 9am
WHERE: Meet in the MAIN parking area near Liberty House Restaurant at 76 Audrey Zapp Drive, Jersey City, NJ 07305. The Liberty House Restaurant has a GREEN Roof, for easy recognition. Look for NY ICer, Basil, who will have a BIG, American Flag on a pole that day
BRING: Anti-Amnesty signs in Big, Bold Letters. Simple works best, like “No Amnesty” or “No Open Borders”. Bring Cameras!
CONTACT: Basil M. at firstname.lastname@example.org to let him know you are coming or for more information. Look for Basil with the big, American Flag on a pole.
From Joanna, President NY ICE (New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement):
NY ICE members are educated in communicating with hard facts (and their sources, when possible) at rallies. We find that facts alone are often hard for the opposition to dispute. They are also useful when speaking with passersby who want to know more. HOWEVER, since the opposition knows the facts are on our side, they often engage in vulgarity, cursing, and the display of the middle finger. ;We are NEVER to engage in the same vulgar behavior, and must hold ourselves to a higher standard, which the Press will take note of. If communicating with hard facts does NOT work, a Member can walk away, seek another Member, or annihilate the opposition’s credibility without sinking to vulgarity.
CHICAGO (AP) Mexican drug cartels whose operatives once rarely ventured beyond the US border are dispatching some of their most trusted agents to live and work deep inside the United States an emboldened presence that experts believe is meant to tighten their grip on the world's most lucrative narcotics market and maximize profits. If left unchecked, authorities say, the cartels' move into the American interior could render the syndicates harder than ever to dislodge and pave the way for them to expand into other criminal enterprises such as prostitution, kidnapping-and-extortion rackets and money laundering.
Some cartels even have Mexican operatives fill out job applications before being dispatched to the US, Riley added.
In Mexico, the cartels are known for a staggering number of killings more than 50,000, according to one tally. Beheadings are sometimes a signature. So far, cartels don't appear to be directly responsible for large numbers of slayings in the United States, though the Texas Department of Public Safety reported 22 killings and five kidnappings in Texas at the hands of Mexican cartels from 2010 through mid- 2011. Still, police worry that increased cartel activity could fuel heightened violence.--SNIP--
In Chicago, the police commander who oversees narcotics investigations, James O'Grady, said street-gang disputes over turf account for most of the city's uptick in murders last year, when slayings topped 500 for the first time since 2008.
Although the cartels aren't dictating the territorial wars, they are the source of drugs. Riley's assessment is stark: He argues that the cartels should be seen as an underlying cause of Chicago's disturbingly high murder rate. "They are the puppeteers," he said. "Maybe the shooter didn't know and maybe the victim didn't know that. But if you follow it down the line, the cartels are ultimately responsible."
Disgraced Bronx NY Assemblyman Nelson Castro resigned amid revelation hes been wired---cooperating with prosecutors to save himself. Castro, a Dominican Republic native, worked his way up the Democrat political ladder. Once chief of staff to former Assemblyman (now state Senator) Adriano Espaillat (Dem-Manhattan), he forged close ties with Bronx Democrats.
Castro was elected in 2008, but turned government witness when the state charged him with a sealed perjury indictment in 2009----for making false statements WRT large numbers who registered to vote using the address of his Bronx apartment.
NY POST UNCOVERED ANOTHER DOMINICAN REPUBLIC VOTINO SCAM----FACILITATED WITH PUBLIC MONIES:
EDITED/ EXCERPT The NY-BASED Hispanic Federation has a $22 million treasure chest of public monies. The non-profit federation mysteriously pays out small amounts, from $400-800, to individuals---but fails to detail on official documents the purpose of the outlays---as required by law.
An unnamed federation insider told the NY Post that the payments subsidize votino scams. The insider confided: "I use federation funds (public monies) to pay a lady for bringing latino seniors to a Democrat political event. The Hispanic Federation promised to send the lady and her family to her homeland----the Dominican Republic----in exchange for rounding up votes.
VOTINO SCAM COVER-UP---A federation spokesman called the allegations simply untrue, saying it ONLY provides funds for those in need of disaster relief. The Hispanic Federation spokesman explained the unrecorded payments were for families of victims of American Airlines Flight 587, which crashed in Queens in 2001, or "other people in need."
Thanks for the post AuntB.
Yea, Hannity is a waste of breath where conservatism is concerned, he’s just another garden variety GOP’er and if the GOP were to ever back Gay Marriage explicitly, the next day, Hannity would be backing it too.
He simply has no principles, there more like suggestions for him.
Also, Ted Cruz is looking more and more like a viable GOP Presidential Nominee.
Rand Paul, Rubio, Jeb Bush are all wankers in comparison to Ted.
He’s actually a principled man, looking out for the constitutional rights of us citizens.