Poll: Most Favor Letting Illegal Immigrants Stay

[Frodo]

Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 2, 2006
Filed at 12:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans are divided about whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the country, a poll finds. More than one-half of those questioned are open to allowing undocumented workers to obtain some temporary legal status so they can stay in the United States.

At the same time, people doubt that erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border could help to fix such a complex and enduring problem, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Two-thirds do not think it would work.

''You can't go and round up 11 million people and ship them out of the country,'' said Robert Kelly. The Chicago lawyer is among the 56 percent of Americans who favor offering some kind of legal status. ''It just isn't practical,'' he said.

A smaller but still significant share -- 41 percent -- opposes offering any kind of legal status, giving voice to a law-and-order mind-set that bristles at the notion of officially recognizing those who did not play by the rules to get here.

[??????????]

As long as all immigrants who are applying to be citizens in a legal manner get automatic citizenship first then, I will support full amnesty for illegals living in the US currently. Otherwise, deport or jail them.

[ag]

As long as all immigrants who are applying to be citizens in a legal manner get automatic citizenship first then, I will support full amnesty for illegals living in the US currently. Otherwise, deport or jail them.

If you new anything about the US immigration law and the Senate proposal you'd realize 2 things:

1. Your precondition is nearly satisfied anyway
2. The Senate proposal is, by your standards, super-tough, not super-soft.

1. Almost by definition, a legal immigrant is a greencard holder (officially, "US permanent resident"). (Nearly) nobody can apply to become a naturalized citizen without first being a greencard holder (exceptions are really numerically insignifficant, mainly having to do w/ children of citizens, and these are on a "fast track" anyway). Nobody can become a greencard holder, unless s/he has been found eligible to be a US citizen. After 5 years of residence as a legal immigrant, greencard holders can apply for citizenship, which is nearly always granted (exceptions include those convicted of certain felonies, those who voted illegally before getting the citizenship, those who used their non-citizenship to get an early discharge from the US Army and/or not to register for the selective service and a few other - mainly small and esoteric - categories).  While the processing can, sometimes take a few months to a couple of years - US bureaucracy is very inefficient here - nearly every immigrant who wants to becomes a citizen almost automatically (with the above-mentioned exceptions).

2. There are several non-immigrant categories legally applying for the greencard. Within the US these are either refugees (usually getting their greencard a year after arrival) or holders of a few "double-intent" visas, such as the work visa for highly skilled workers H1B (most of these people get the greencard within 5 years of application, usually much faster, and citizenship 5 years later) or spousal visas (even faster). From outside the US one can apply for a greencard, mainly, on family reunification grounds, which, for close family of US citizens, usually doesn't take much more than 5 years either (usually less). Of course, there are more distant relative categories involved, but getting a visa through them is so unrealistic that few people bother applying based on them anyway. None of these people are legal immigrants applying for citizenship, so, by your definition they are irrelevant anyway.

3. The Senate bill would let those currently illegally in the US, upon paying a fairly large fine and having demonstrated a work opportunity, good character, etc., to apply for a new type of a (non-immigrant, but double-intent) work permit (those outside the US would also be eligible). After 6 years of continuously holding such a permit - a substantially longer period then those on the now-existing work visas, etc. face - they would be able to apply to become legal immigrants (greencard holders), and after further 5 years they'd be able to apply for citizenship. Thus, what the current bill does is to put the illegal immigrants at the end of the line for citizenship, BEHIND all those who are legally applying now, and quite a few of those who will only apply in the future. Even under the ideal circumstance, NOT A SINGLE beneficiary of the program would become a citizen within the next 11 years (nor a legal immigrant within the next 6). In fact, given the usual delays of the immigration bureaucracy and the difficulty most uneducated people have negotiating it, in practice the vast majority of them will not have become citizens  before 15 years have passed.

To sum up, if I am to take your statement seriously, you are a supporter of the Senate bill, but concerned that it is too tough on the immigrants. Is that a fair characterization?

[David S]

If illegal immigrants don't have to obey the law does that mean I can stop paying my taxes now? and carry a gun without bothering to get a permit?

Either we have laws or we don't. Enforce the damn laws.

[??????????]

To sum up, if I am to take your statement seriously, you are a supporter of the Senate bill, but concerned that it is too tough on the immigrants. Is that a fair characterization?

Well AG, I didn't realize things have gotten so terrible with immigration law. I actually support a slightly watered down version of the house bill but I think the Senate bill is way to soft. I was basing my belief on the dumb assumption that it was actually hard to emigrate here. I remember all the family stories about how hard it was to come here back in the 20s and 30s and thought (wrongly) that things haven't gotten as bad as you say.

My grandmother had a bad eye when she was a child and she was almost rejected by the immigration people at Ellis Island. My great-grandfather luckily had enough money that he could hire his own personal doctor and his own personal lawyer and get her into the country. Otherwise she'd have lived her life over in Ramallah or had a harder time coming here. I'd just wish this country would go back to making it very hard to come here instead of making it easier. I have nothing against immigrants, because I come from immigrants. Just come here legally, speak English and wait your damn turn like everyone else had to do.

If illegal immigrants don't have to obey the law does that mean I can stop paying my taxes now? and carry a gun without bothering to get a permit?

Either we have laws or we don't. Enforce the damn laws.

Damn straight.

[ag]

To sum up, if I am to take your statement seriously, you are a supporter of the Senate bill, but concerned that it is too tough on the immigrants. Is that a fair characterization?

Well AG, I didn't realize things have gotten so terrible with immigration law. I actually support a slightly watered down version of the house bill but I think the Senate bill is way to soft. I was basing my belief on the dumb assumption that it was actually hard to emigrate here. I remember all the family stories about how hard it was to come here back in the 20s and 30s and thought (wrongly) that things haven't gotten as bad as you say.

My grandmother had a bad eye when she was a child and she was almost rejected by the immigration people at Ellis Island. My great-grandfather luckily had enough money that he could hire his own personal doctor and his own personal lawyer and get her into the country. Otherwise she'd have lived her life over in Ramallah or had a harder time coming here. I'd just wish this country would go back to making it very hard to come here instead of making it easier. I have nothing against immigrants, because I come from immigrants. Just come here legally, speak English and wait your damn turn like everyone else had to do.

What you don't realize is that your grandma would have never gotten close to Ellis Island if it were today. She would have never had a chance to apply to legally enter the US, period, so she wouldn't have ever have applied, and would, therefore, never count for your "precondition". She had it easy - it's a lot tougher now.

It is, actually, very hard to immigrate to the US, many times harder then in the days of your grandma. The vast majority of the people in the world have no legal way whatsoever of doing it - none, as in none whatsoever, never in their life, no matter what they do (even if English is their native language). For this reason, of course, none of them bother applying legally - they'd have a guaranteed 100% chance of being rejected.  If they really want to come, they come illegally.  Had your grandma been doing it today, most likely, she'd come in illegally, or else would never come. I don't know exactly her bio, obviously, but w/ a 99% probability there would not be a legal way for her to enter the US as an immigrant, unless she married a US citizen while abroad. Think of it that way.

Those few who have a chance of getting in, in contrast, get in, if they really want to, though sufferring through a bunch of bureaucratic indignities - as will be the case w/ those benefitting from the Senate bill.

PS What you also don't realize is, that, once you control for the fact, that those who assymilate faster tend not to report themselves as hispanics within a generation or two, most studies show that hispanic migrants of today learn English not at all slower (even, perhaps, a bit faster) than, say, Italians, Jews, or Germans of 100 years ago (well, at least until the Germans were forced to switch real fast in WWI).

[Lief 🗽]

New Poll: Arizona Senator (Special) by  Change Research on 2020-07-12

Summary: D: 52%, R: 45%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Lief 🗽]

New Poll: Michigan Senator by  Change Research on 2020-07-12

Summary: D: 50%, R: 43%, U: 6%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Lief 🗽]

New Poll: North Carolina Senator by  Change Research on 2020-07-12

Summary: D: 49%, R: 42%, U: 9%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details