Poll data on illegal immigration

[Smash255]

Carl,  The Bottom line is most Americans believe that those already here illegally should be able to become citizens if they meet certain requirments.  Their is no spin, lie or any other crap that you spout that can change the fact most Americans support making those immigrants who are already here illgeally to become citizens.  Those are the facts period.

So, should an illegtal alien who has been here for say ten years and hasn't paid income taxes be able to get away with paying three years of back taxes while a native born American who has not paid such taxes for the same period have to pay for all ten years?

Sorry, but when the public hears the specifics of the proposed legislation, as opposed to glitteringt (and false) generalities, it opposes amnesty.

This is already known.  the bottom line is the public favors citizenship period. 

Er, among the vast majority of voters this is NOT known.

Note, I cited the subquestion of the survey of approval of amnesty when the illegtals only had to pay three years back taxes.

Also, I noticed you evaded my question with regtards to equity .

All Amnesty is, is a buzz word.  Amnesty would actually be nothing at all, no back taxes, not 3 years, it would be no fines, no checks, no nothing.  Thats would amnesty is.  Bottom line is no matter how you twist your way out of it, this is what the American people want Citizenship for those already here.  period.  Thats what the public favors, thats what the poll suggests period.  Just because the poll results show that the American public differs from you on the question of citizenship doesn't make something wronf with the poll.  All it means is THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH YOU.. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I favor a fance and opening in more legal immigragtion(although strongly limiting where the immigrants come from)

That's basically the position of the majority of Americans!

Oh good. I don't want the US to end up like europe with a large population of muslims.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl,  The Bottom line is most Americans believe that those already here illegally should be able to become citizens if they meet certain requirments.  Their is no spin, lie or any other crap that you spout that can change the fact most Americans support making those immigrants who are already here illgeally to become citizens.  Those are the facts period.

So, should an illegtal alien who has been here for say ten years and hasn't paid income taxes be able to get away with paying three years of back taxes while a native born American who has not paid such taxes for the same period have to pay for all ten years?

Sorry, but when the public hears the specifics of the proposed legislation, as opposed to glitteringt (and false) generalities, it opposes amnesty.

This is already known.  the bottom line is the public favors citizenship period. 

Er, among the vast majority of voters this is NOT known.

Note, I cited the subquestion of the survey of approval of amnesty when the illegtals only had to pay three years back taxes.

Also, I noticed you evaded my question with regtards to equity .

All Amnesty is, is a buzz word.  Amnesty would actually be nothing at all, no back taxes, not 3 years, it would be no fines, no checks, no nothing.  Thats would amnesty is.  Bottom line is no matter how you twist your way out of it, this is what the American people want Citizenship for those already here.  period.  Thats what the public favors, thats what the poll suggests period.  Just because the poll results show that the American public differs from you on the question of citizenship doesn't make something wronf with the poll.  All it means is THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH YOU.. 

Well, you're wrongt once again.

Lets look at the details.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to "learn English" most people erroneously assume that means learn sufficent English to be able to pass the citizenship exams.  That is NOT the case, as the bill specifies that they merely need to know "minimnal English."

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to pay back taxes, most people errnoeously assume that means all back taxes, whereas in factg the bill specifies only three years of back taxes.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have no criminal record, most would assume that would mean that they have not been arrested for crimes.  However, many have been arrested but the feds have compelled local agencies to release them without prosecution.  Indeed, I cited a couple of weeks ago an example in San Diego of how the prosecutors were refusing to prosecute smugglers arrested by the Border Patrol (so the only reason they don't have a criminal record is because pro-illegal prosecutors refused to obey they law themselves).

[Nym90]

I was going to make a long and detailed response, but then I realized you posted ten pages of if it, far too much for me to even have the time to look at. And you seem so head-strong about this whole immigration issue, I doubt anyone or anything could nudge your opinion on it, even if facts were in their favor.

True, but the main purpose of debate and discussion on these boards should be (in my opinion) to convince others reading the thread, not the person you are actually arguing with. If your focus is on convincing the person you are arguing with, you will very quickly become frustrated, as that person has quite often already made up their mind on the issue, as you mention. The debate is for the benefit of those who are not posting more than it is for the benefit of those that are, at least in terms of persuading people to change their views.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

Your's is a very good point.

Please notice that my posts generally contain a great deal of factual information couple with analysis.

[John Dibble]

John,

At one time I had a great deal of respect for you.

Lately you have (for whatever reason) become very hostile.

Carl,

At one time I had a great deal of respect for you.

Lately you have (for whatever reason) become very hostile, so naturally I've become a bit hostile in return.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I engage in personalities because I'm trying to help you out, as I've said before - I'm trying to give you honest advice, but your hostility makes it rather difficult to continue to want to do so as does your seeming unwillingness to even listen to what I have to say. You were the one who started being hostile to people who don't deserve it in the first place, so of course you're going to get hostility in return. It's basic social psychology(which I'm currently taking a class in) - if people think you like them they'll like you more in return, and if people think you dislike them they'll dislike you in return. This affects attempts at persuasion. People who like you are more likely to seriously listen to your points and respons positively, and people who dislike you are less likely to listen and more likely to respond negatively.

Sure, you might have facts, polls, and statistics - they're important to your point for sure - but if you want people to look at them seriously you first need to make them listen. To do that you need to be considerate and polite, but lately you've been condescending and hostile. That's turned people against you and made them far less willing to listen to what you have to say. It's like jfern - he can have all the facts in the world on his side in a debate, but he'll typically lose because most people don't want to listen to him because he acts so damn hostile. Even the people not actually debating pick up on it, and they ignore him too. You're not quite as bad as jfern is in this regard, but I hope you get my point.

Also, on a side note, it helps if you try to understand the other side's way of thinking and structure your argument accordingly - your way of thinking is not necessarily the same, otherwise they would probably have your views. And taking the time to listen to and considering what the other side has to say isn't a bad idea either - if you respect them enough to do that, the'll likely reciprocate.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well John,

When I cited facts, I believe it was you who called out for statistics.

Well, I cited statistics here, in considerable detail.

Now, lets examine some reasons why people would favor illegal immigration and/or providing such persons with amnesty.

First, the liberal media and President Bush has presented illegal aliens (they use misleading terms such as 'undocumenteds') as wonderful, good-hearted people.

If you merely knew what you were told by the liberal media and/or George W. Bush, you would probably wonder why anyone would oppose adding wondergful, good-hearted people to our population.

Well, the truth of the matter is that many illegal aliens are NOT wonderful, good-hearted people.  I have posted specifics in this regard.

Second, Bush and the liberal media have alledged that the illegals would have to pay back taxes to get their amnesty.  Well, I can see where a number of people would approve of getting such revenue added but, in fact, they would only have to pay some (and perhaps no) back taxes pursuant to S. 2611.  When people are apprised of this fact, the poll I cited showed a distinct drop in approval for amnesty.

Third, Bush and the liberal media have alledged that illegals would have to learn English.  Well, again I can see where people would be more supportive of amnesty if they believed that the recepients of amnesty would really have to learn English.  However, pursuant to S. 2611, the recepients of amnesty  only need to know "minimual" English.  I would like to see the poll question reflect this wording, and see the results.

Fourth, Bush and the liberal media would have you believe the people they would grant amnesty to aren't criminals.  However, as I have previously noted, but the only reason many of them don't have criminal records is that Bush has ordered that when apprehended, they are not to be prosecuted.  Indeed the legislation in question would prohibit non federal law enforcement agencies from enforcing laws against illegal entry.

Fifth, there is the repeated promise that if the amnesty bill is enacted, there will be some enforcement of laws in the future against illegal entry.  However, there is a long reord to indicate that Bush will NOT enforce such laws (and I have cited extensively of non-enforcement).

Sixth, there are people who favor amnesty for illegal aliens because they approve of the ability of people to cross national borders without meeting any legal requirements.  I have cited examples of how terrorists can use this (free plug for Tom Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger).

Seventh, there are some people who believe that illegal aliens are an incredible benefit to the economy of the United States.  I have pointed out that some of the allegations that proponents of illegal immigrants are not only false, but absurd (McCain's $50 an hour for picking lettuce, to cite one example). and that the public costs (education, health care, corrections. etc.) borne by the taxpayer outweight the benefits to the national economy.

Eighth, there are some who believe that since immigrants largely tend to vote for the Democrat party, that some Democrats support amnesty for illegal aliens so that they can be used to elect more Democrats.  I have pointed out that while it is true that most legalized illegals who do vote (many would not) would support Democrat party candidates, they would also vote pretty conservatively on ballot measures like 'gay marriage.'

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that the proposal for amnesty is based on a series of misrepresentations and misconceptions, and I have sought to provide clear examples of the same.

Now, why would the proponents of amnesty be pushing these misrepresentations  if they were not necessary to secure their proposal?

Also, perhaps you can cite some basis for support for illegal immigration that I have not already cited (please be clear, not rambling/vague).  Perhaps I am missing something.

[John Dibble]

Carl, I have a question for you - what did any of that have to do with my last post?

All I was pointing out in that last post was why your arguments aren't as effective as they could be - notice nowhere have I really debated with you the merits or drawbacks of illegal immigration, nor will I until you actually listen to my advice. It's clear you aren't, because that rant you just wrote had absolutely nothing to do with my advice whatsoever. You can dodge the issue of your hostile attitude all you wish, but you're only hurting your own cause.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excuse me, but I though (among other things) you said something to the effect of "...try to understand the other side's way of thinking, and structure you argument accordingly"?

I tried to point out that I sought to identify all the basis for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and addressed those points rather specificly.

I even asked you to identify any basis for support for amnesty to illegal aliens which I had not identified, but none was cited in your response.

Now, I have not told others to "shut up," in the course of debating this issue (but this has been done by others to me), I have not likened others positions to that of NAZIs or Communists (however, this has been done by others to me).   So, could it be that there are some posters who are unable to deal with facts and/or logic and feel the must engage in name calling?

 

[John Dibble]

Excuse me, but I though (among other things) you said something to the effect of "...try to understand the other side's way of thinking, and structure you argument accordingly"?

Yes, but considering I didn't even make a statement of my views on illegal immigration, how where you supposed to do that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you did, but again I have to ask what it had to do with what I said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some perhaps, but I still say you have been very hostile and condescending since you came back to the forum. If you're not intending to be, just be aware that there are those who are perceiving you as such and that it weakens the effect of your attempts at persuasion, so try to adjust accordingly.

Again, just to restate my purpose in this - my points have nothing to do with the illegal immigration issue in particular, or any issue in particular for that matter. Rather I am simply trying to tell you how to make a more persuasive argument in the first place. Again, let me repeat that so it is very clear this time and you don't go off on a tangent about illegal immigration: I am not debating the illegal immigration issue, I am advising you on debate tactics. You can take the advice and try to make yourself look more polite, bolstering the effectiveness of your argument, or not. Your choice. I said what I have to say on that, so I'm not going to bother any more.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, if I understand you correctly, the problem you perceive is not substance but style.

Previously, I thought you had called for statistics (which I then began to provide).

Now, I will admit that I am offended by patent dishonesty.  I don't like it when others make allegations which are false for the purpose of misleading others.

I didn't like it in McCain came up with his absurd $50 a hour to pick lettuce allegation, and I don't like it when others assert that the American people support amnesty.  In fact, ALL the surveys have arrived at that by loading the question with allegation of "border enforcemt" and "employer sanctions."   The public clearly favors both of those measures.  The 'amnesty' is added on as a rider to those two provisions, and actually diminishes public support (contast the response on question 13 with the response on question 14) of the survey I cited. 

Now, there have been several amenesties going back to 1986, where enforcement was promised, but never delivered.  So, to what degree would the public support another amnesty where enforcement is again NOT delivered, but amnesty is given?

It seems to me that support for amnesty per se is around ten per cent, and the rest of the support is for enforcement and guest worker provisions.

[Smash255]

Carl,  The Bottom line is most Americans believe that those already here illegally should be able to become citizens if they meet certain requirments.  Their is no spin, lie or any other crap that you spout that can change the fact most Americans support making those immigrants who are already here illgeally to become citizens.  Those are the facts period.

So, should an illegtal alien who has been here for say ten years and hasn't paid income taxes be able to get away with paying three years of back taxes while a native born American who has not paid such taxes for the same period have to pay for all ten years?

Sorry, but when the public hears the specifics of the proposed legislation, as opposed to glitteringt (and false) generalities, it opposes amnesty.

This is already known.  the bottom line is the public favors citizenship period. 

Er, among the vast majority of voters this is NOT known.

Note, I cited the subquestion of the survey of approval of amnesty when the illegtals only had to pay three years back taxes.

Also, I noticed you evaded my question with regtards to equity .

All Amnesty is, is a buzz word.  Amnesty would actually be nothing at all, no back taxes, not 3 years, it would be no fines, no checks, no nothing.  Thats would amnesty is.  Bottom line is no matter how you twist your way out of it, this is what the American people want Citizenship for those already here.  period.  Thats what the public favors, thats what the poll suggests period.  Just because the poll results show that the American public differs from you on the question of citizenship doesn't make something wronf with the poll.  All it means is THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH YOU.. 

Well, you're wrongt once again.

Lets look at the details.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to "learn English" most people erroneously assume that means learn sufficent English to be able to pass the citizenship exams.  That is NOT the case, as the bill specifies that they merely need to know "minimnal English."

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to pay back taxes, most people errnoeously assume that means all back taxes, whereas in factg the bill specifies only three years of back taxes.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have no criminal record, most would assume that would mean that they have not been arrested for crimes.  However, many have been arrested but the feds have compelled local agencies to release them without prosecution.  Indeed, I cited a couple of weeks ago an example in San Diego of how the prosecutors were refusing to prosecute smugglers arrested by the Border Patrol (so the only reason they don't have a criminal record is because pro-illegal prosecutors refused to obey they law themselves).

Most people actually do realize that must learn English doesn't exactly mean being proficent, most people know that its three years back taxes, not the whole thing.  These are things that have already been discussed and are already known.


The bottom line is the American public support citizenship for those already here.  No spin you have  can change that fact.  It jhas nothing to do with the wording of the poll, any cohersion or any of the other crap you want to pull out of thin air simply because the polls show the pubblic disagrees with you.  This is what the American public wants, border security AND Citizenship.  Period, they want BOTH and EVERY SINGLE POLL BACKS THAT UP.

[John Dibble]

So, if I understand you correctly, the problem you perceive is not substance but style.

Previously, I thought you had called for statistics (which I then began to provide).

Now, I will admit that I am offended by patent dishonesty.  I don't like it when others make allegations which are false for the purpose of misleading others.

To the first, yes. Again, I'm trying to give you some advice.

To the second, yes I did in a previous thread. And it is better when you do. Again this was advice, and you did follow it at least to an extent.

To the third, I'm not being dishonest at all - I've been giving you my honest opinion of your attitude as of late(your attitude as I perceive it anyways), why it hurts your argument, and how you can rectify it. Again, notice I haven't actually debated you on the issue of illegal imigration itself. My intent is not to mislead others, rather just to try to get you to go back to being the much more pleasant to debate Carl from before.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl,  The Bottom line is most Americans believe that those already here illegally should be able to become citizens if they meet certain requirments.  Their is no spin, lie or any other crap that you spout that can change the fact most Americans support making those immigrants who are already here illgeally to become citizens.  Those are the facts period.

So, should an illegtal alien who has been here for say ten years and hasn't paid income taxes be able to get away with paying three years of back taxes while a native born American who has not paid such taxes for the same period have to pay for all ten years?

Sorry, but when the public hears the specifics of the proposed legislation, as opposed to glitteringt (and false) generalities, it opposes amnesty.

This is already known.  the bottom line is the public favors citizenship period. 

Er, among the vast majority of voters this is NOT known.

Note, I cited the subquestion of the survey of approval of amnesty when the illegtals only had to pay three years back taxes.

Also, I noticed you evaded my question with regtards to equity .

All Amnesty is, is a buzz word.  Amnesty would actually be nothing at all, no back taxes, not 3 years, it would be no fines, no checks, no nothing.  Thats would amnesty is.  Bottom line is no matter how you twist your way out of it, this is what the American people want Citizenship for those already here.  period.  Thats what the public favors, thats what the poll suggests period.  Just because the poll results show that the American public differs from you on the question of citizenship doesn't make something wronf with the poll.  All it means is THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH YOU.. 

Well, you're wrongt once again.

Lets look at the details.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to "learn English" most people erroneously assume that means learn sufficent English to be able to pass the citizenship exams.  That is NOT the case, as the bill specifies that they merely need to know "minimnal English."

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to pay back taxes, most people errnoeously assume that means all back taxes, whereas in factg the bill specifies only three years of back taxes.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have no criminal record, most would assume that would mean that they have not been arrested for crimes.  However, many have been arrested but the feds have compelled local agencies to release them without prosecution.  Indeed, I cited a couple of weeks ago an example in San Diego of how the prosecutors were refusing to prosecute smugglers arrested by the Border Patrol (so the only reason they don't have a criminal record is because pro-illegal prosecutors refused to obey they law themselves).

Most people actually do realize that must learn English doesn't exactly mean being proficent, most people know that its three years back taxes, not the whole thing.  These are things that have already been discussed and are already known.


The bottom line is the American public support citizenship for those already here.  No spin you have  can change that fact.  It jhas nothing to do with the wording of the poll, any cohersion or any of the other crap you want to pull out of thin air simply because the polls show the pubblic disagrees with you.  This is what the American public wants, border security AND Citizenship.  Period, they want BOTH and EVERY SINGLE POLL BACKS THAT UP.

You make assertions without facts.

The polls you cite state that we'll give you border enforcement and employer emforcement if you accept amenesty.

Let amnesty stand on its own (it falls).

Existing laws against illegal border entry and illegal employment should be enforced now (they are popular).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, one of the problems with opinion polls are the questions that are NOT asked:

Now, as the Ayres poll indicated, the is support for border security and employer sanctions, and quite a bit of support for guest worker program.  However, when amnesty for illegals currently in this county (even when artfully disguised as 'a path to citizenship,' support plumets.

But, the question central to the election is how people will vote for candidates taking different positions on the issue.  A partial insight in this is the Hart/NBC poll;

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 9-12, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
 
      .
 
"I'm going to read you some positions that someone running for Congress could take. For each one, please tell me whether you would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who takes this position, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not make a difference to you either way? . . ." Registered voters
 
      .
 
  More Likely Less Likely No Difference Unsure   
                                %      %      %      %   
 "Favors increasing border security by building a fence along the border with Mexico"
 
     6/9-12/06           50     26     22       2   
     
 
 "Favors a guest worker program for illegal immigrants who have been in the United States at least two years"
 
     6/9-12/06           40     34    21        5

Given the results from Ayres (extrapolating on the Hart data) it would appear that the public is more likely to support candidates who oppose amnesty.

A resonable estimate is:

                                34     40    21        5

What is particulary interesting is that Ayres indicates the greatest opposition to amnesty is among Repubicans.  I would extrapolate:


                                32     42    21        5

[CARLHAYDEN]

As I previously noted, there were (and still are) several polls yet to be released on illegal 'immigratio.'

Well, the Tarrance Group conducted a poll of likely Republian voters (800) June 12-15.

Here is a brief summary of some results.

First, the most popular approach was 'border enforcement & employer sanctions' with 82% Favoring, and 15% opposing.

Second, the substance of the Senate bill was included in a question as to whether it constituted amnesty.  The response was: 58% Yes, 37% No.

Third, the respondents were asked if no bill would be better than a bill containing amnesty.  The response: no bill 53%, bill with amenesty 35%.

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the most interesting results of the better quality polls on illegal aliens over th past few months has been the very strong support among Republicans for sanctions against employers of illegal aliens.

Consistently this has had overwhelming support among Republicans (even more so than for Independents or Democrats).

Now, I wish that the Tarrance poll would indicate the results by region.

From what I have seen, a civil war is going on in the Republican party pitting 'main street' (anti-amnesty) against 'wall street' (pro-amnesty).

[Smash255]

Carl,  The Bottom line is most Americans believe that those already here illegally should be able to become citizens if they meet certain requirments.  Their is no spin, lie or any other crap that you spout that can change the fact most Americans support making those immigrants who are already here illgeally to become citizens.  Those are the facts period.

So, should an illegtal alien who has been here for say ten years and hasn't paid income taxes be able to get away with paying three years of back taxes while a native born American who has not paid such taxes for the same period have to pay for all ten years?

Sorry, but when the public hears the specifics of the proposed legislation, as opposed to glitteringt (and false) generalities, it opposes amnesty.

This is already known.  the bottom line is the public favors citizenship period. 

Er, among the vast majority of voters this is NOT known.

Note, I cited the subquestion of the survey of approval of amnesty when the illegtals only had to pay three years back taxes.

Also, I noticed you evaded my question with regtards to equity .

All Amnesty is, is a buzz word.  Amnesty would actually be nothing at all, no back taxes, not 3 years, it would be no fines, no checks, no nothing.  Thats would amnesty is.  Bottom line is no matter how you twist your way out of it, this is what the American people want Citizenship for those already here.  period.  Thats what the public favors, thats what the poll suggests period.  Just because the poll results show that the American public differs from you on the question of citizenship doesn't make something wronf with the poll.  All it means is THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH YOU.. 

Well, you're wrongt once again.

Lets look at the details.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to "learn English" most people erroneously assume that means learn sufficent English to be able to pass the citizenship exams.  That is NOT the case, as the bill specifies that they merely need to know "minimnal English."

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have to pay back taxes, most people errnoeously assume that means all back taxes, whereas in factg the bill specifies only three years of back taxes.

When most people hear that the illegals to be granted amnesty would have no criminal record, most would assume that would mean that they have not been arrested for crimes.  However, many have been arrested but the feds have compelled local agencies to release them without prosecution.  Indeed, I cited a couple of weeks ago an example in San Diego of how the prosecutors were refusing to prosecute smugglers arrested by the Border Patrol (so the only reason they don't have a criminal record is because pro-illegal prosecutors refused to obey they law themselves).

Most people actually do realize that must learn English doesn't exactly mean being proficent, most people know that its three years back taxes, not the whole thing.  These are things that have already been discussed and are already known.


The bottom line is the American public support citizenship for those already here.  No spin you have  can change that fact.  It jhas nothing to do with the wording of the poll, any cohersion or any of the other crap you want to pull out of thin air simply because the polls show the pubblic disagrees with you.  This is what the American public wants, border security AND Citizenship.  Period, they want BOTH and EVERY SINGLE POLL BACKS THAT UP.

You make assertions without facts.

The polls you cite state that we'll give you border enforcement and employer emforcement if you accept amenesty.

Let amnesty stand on its own (it falls).

Existing laws against illegal border entry and illegal employment should be enforced now (they are popular).

For starters if we should have increased border security or not, is not what I am arguing here.  Most Americans myself included feel we do need border security.  However, most ALSO favor citizenship, as ALL the polls indicate.  Most believe the issue is not do we do one or the other, most believe we SHOULD DO BOTH

From the poll

12. Which of the following three types of legislation would you prefer:
a. A bill that concentrates on border security and employer verification of workers' legal status, but does not
include a temporary-worker program or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here,
because we have to secure the border and improve employer verification first before we can think about
other solutions.
b. A bill that includes border security and employer verification of workers' legal status, but also includes a
temporary-worker program, because we have to address the need for workers by U.S. employers if we are
ever going to get control of the border.
c. A bill that includes border security, employer verification of workers' legal status, and a temporary-worker
program, but also includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here, because any
solution to the immigration problem must deal with the illegal immigrants who are already in America.
                                                                            ALL REP IND DEM
JUST BORDER SECURITY/VERIFICATION..............22% 26% 19% 21%
INCLUDE TEMPORARY WORKER ..........................25% 26% 26% 22%
INCLUDE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP ...........................40% 35% 41% 43%
DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION.....................................14% 13% 13% 14%



most also favor having Border Secuirty and Temporary worker, or bordeer Security  and path to citizenship over no bill at all, and its across the board fro GOP, Dems & independents

13. If the choice facing Congress is between a bill that includes border security, employer enforcement, and a
temporary-worker program, or no bill at all, which would you prefer?
                                                                           ALL REP IND DEM
BORDER/EMPLOYER/TEMPORARY WORKER........71% 76% 71% 66%
NO BILL AT ALL....................................................22% 18% 21% 27%
DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION...................................... 7% 6% 8% 6%
14. If the choice facing Congress is between a bill that includes border security, employer enforcement, a
temporary-worker program, and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here, or no bill at all,
which would you prefer?
                                                                              ALL REP IND DEM
BORDER/EMPLOYER/WORKER/CITIZENSHIP.........61% 59% 61% 63%
NO BILL AT ALL....................................................30% 33% 29% 30%
DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION...................................... 9% 8% 10% 8%


And how no bill could effect who someone will vote for
15. As you probably know, Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If the House
and Senate disagree so strongly about the correct approach to illegal immigration so that no bill passes, will that
make you more likely or less likely to vote for Republican candidates for the House and Senate in the election this
November?
                                                                             ALL REP IND DEM
MORE LIKELY .......................................................19% 33% 15% 9%
LESS LIKELY.........................................................40% 20% 42% 58%
NO EFFECT (VOLUNTEERED).................................27% 35% 24% 24%
DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION.....................................14% 12% 20% 9%

[Nym90]

One of the most interesting results of the better quality polls on illegal aliens over th past few months has been the very strong support among Republicans for sanctions against employers of illegal aliens.

Consistently this has had overwhelming support among Republicans (even more so than for Independents or Democrats).

Now, I wish that the Tarrance poll would indicate the results by region.

From what I have seen, a civil war is going on in the Republican party pitting 'main street' (anti-amnesty) against 'wall street' (pro-amnesty).

You are right on with this comment. Corporate interests within the party, who currently have sway over official policy positions, are strongly pro-amnesty. Anything that lowers wages is good for the immediate bottom line of businesses; I think they are screwing themselves over in the long run, but most CEOs and members of Boards of Directors care far more about short term performance.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Smash

You keep misreading the polls.

You love the polls which condition border enforcement upon accepting amnesty.  The border enforcement is very popular, and many people will reluctantly approve of it upon being made promises which will NOT be kept.

However, if given the choice between a bill with border and employer enforcement (with guest worker) they prefer that to a bill with amnesty.

Let amnesty stand on its own, and it fails!

[Smash255]

Smash

You keep misreading the polls.

You love the polls which condition border enforcement upon accepting amnesty.  The border enforcement is very popular, and many people will reluctantly approve of it upon being made promises which will NOT be kept.

However, if given the choice between a bill with border and employer enforcement (with guest worker) they prefer that to a bill with amnesty.

Let amnesty stand on its own, and it fails!

Wrong.

Their are more people that would rather no bill at all if it included citizenship than those who would rather no bill at all if it was guest worker.  HOWEVER, if given the choice between guest worker and path to citizenship, the path to citizenship wins out.  Likewise if all 3 choices are given, only border security, border security with temporary worker, and border seurity with path to citizenship.  The border security with path to citizenship wins out, followed by border security with temporary worker and last border securty alone. 

Most Americans believe we should do more to secure the border, but they do NOT want border security to be the only part of the bill and want the bill to contain BOTH border seecuirty and a path to citizenship.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If you bothered to read the poll you posted you would see that more people favor border security, employer sanctions and guest workers than they do when amnesty is included.

Now, so far no only has let amnesty stand on its own, but we may soon get a poll on that.

Remember, despite promises, in 1986 we got amnesty with no real border enforcement and no real employer sanctions.

The situation could acurately be likened to telling a bunch of kids they can have have cake and ice cream only if they eat raw liver first.  No doubt you would saw that those who did eat the raw liver did so because they really like it, rather than because they were given no other option.

Since the advocates of amnesty got their way in 1986, it seems only fair to me that this time we get real border enforcement and real employer sanctions, and then we'll deliver on amnesty in the same way border enforcement and employers sanctions was delivered after 1986.

[Smash255]

If you bothered to read the poll you posted you would see that more people favor border security, employer sanctions and guest workers than they do when amnesty is included.

Now, so far no only has let amnesty stand on its own, but we may soon get a poll on that.

Remember, despite promises, in 1986 we got amnesty with no real border enforcement and no real employer sanctions.

The situation could acurately be likened to telling a bunch of kids they can have have cake and ice cream only if they eat raw liver first.  No doubt you would saw that those who did eat the raw liver did so because they really like it, rather than because they were given no other option.

Since the advocates of amnesty got their way in 1986, it seems only fair to me that this time we get real border enforcement and real employer sanctions, and then we'll deliver on amnesty in the same way border enforcement and employers sanctions was delivered after 1986.

Again you are wrong.

Most people want both border security AND path to cititzenship than any other option.  More people want that option over just border security, and more people want border security + path to citizenship over just border security.

Where the temp worker gets more support is when the no bill at all option is mentioned.  In other words the % of those who would want no bill passed is higher with the citiznesip than the guest worker program.  However when given the choice between citizenship, guest worker, or simply border security, more support a path to citizenship than any other option. 

In other words the only reason why the guest worker program has a higher # when the no bill option is mentioned is that their are some who would favor a guest worker program, but would not favor a path to citizenship, those who favor a path to citizenship would also accept a guest worker porgram, however if given a choice between the path for citizenship and the temp worker program most favor the path for citizenship.

 

[Smash255]

Would also like to add, that the citizenship poll in the Ayers/ McHenry poll, (the first question on citizenship, question # 7) mentions NOTHING about Border security, yet Americans stilL OVERWELMINGLY support the path to citizneship for those already here.  So the claims that the support for citizenship is only there because it is masked in the border security question is completley & utterly false because that particular question STATES NOTHING ABOUT BORDER SECURITY.  Most support BOTH border security and a path to citizenship as the rest of the poll suggests, but the poll also shows that most still support the path to citizenship even when border security is not even mentioned.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets look at another poll, which does break each segment down.

It was done by Zogby, a Democrat pollster

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that tries to make illegal immigrants go home and reduce future immigration mainly by fortifying the border, forcing businesses to verify that workers are legally in the country, and allowing greater cooperation from local law enforcement.  It does not increase the number of people allowed into the country legally.  Do you think this bill is a:

                                            Good Idea          Bad Idea          Not Sure

All Americans                            69%                  27%                  4%

Which of the following options do you think is the best way to deal with Illegal Immigration?

                               House bill      Mass Deporations     Senate bill     Not sure

All Americans              56%                  12%                      28%              4%