Jun 27 2007
Another Poll Confirms The Amnesty Hypochondriacs Small Minority
The Amnesty Hypochondriacs who oppose any legislation that provides a path, with retribution to society, for the illegal aliens here claim to represent 75% of the people. OK, ego-maniacal observations aside (that would mean the GOP had enormous leads in Congress) we also have polls and other DATA to understand what is really going on here. Some question the clearly simple math I used on the Senate vote to note that the immigration hypochondriacs only garnered 25% support. Well it is pretty easy to do the math. 24 GOP members voted ‘naye’ (the rest were liberals who felt the bill was too harsh on immigrants. 24 out of 99 is…?
While the hypochondriacs mull over that little problem we have a new poll out from CNN/Opinion Research which shows an interesting and similar result:
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday showed 47 percent of Americans opposed the bill, while 30 percent supported it and 19 percent said they didn’t know enough about it to make a judgment. The poll’s sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
However, the poll found a significant division among opponents of the immigration plan. About 28 percent said they were opposed because it did too much to help illegal immigrants, but 15 percent said they were opposed because it did too little.
There is that same number again – 28%! The far right cannot claim (but they do try) alliance with liberals who would truly open the borders and provide immediate citiznship to illegals here now. If they do they are only kidding themselves. But the pollsters make a valid point:
So while much of the opposition to the bill has come from those who believe it is too soft on illegal immigration, the poll found that 45 percent of Americans either support the bill or want it to be more immigrant-friendly, compared to 28 percent who feel it’s already too immigrant-friendly.
Ooppps. No where near the 75% the far right claims they represent! And let’s not forget those undecideds – who are probably more likely the ‘who the hell cares anymore’ crowd. The point is these 19 percent don’t have a position – and they DO NOT agree with the 28% who are the amnesty hypochondriacs. Finally, in a 50-50 nation between Rep and Dem support at the polls 28% is not a solid majority. And all those traitors and quislings on the right who support Bush will not be allying again anytime soon with the hypochondriacs so they could even hope to get near 50% again. These are strong indicators that there is no wide spread support for the far right, and in fact they are rapidly forcing the vast majority of people to line up AGAINST them.
Update: And another poll out showing similar results (remember opposition comes from far left AND far right – so only a subset are from the far right)
To correctly gauge the difference of this issue, we asked people whether they would favor or oppose creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in the country and apply for U.S. citizenship. Then, there was a twist — the question one-half of our sample read continued “if they had a job and paid back taxes” while the question the other half read concluded “even if they don’t pay back taxes”.
Not surprisingly, there was a large difference. Well over half (57%) of adults who had the first statement with the back tax provision favored such a program while two in five (39%) opposed. Among the adults who had the provision of not paying back taxes, two-thirds (66%) opposed such a program while only one-quarter (28%) favored it.
Under certain conditions – those outlined in the bill as opposed to some cherry picked by partisans – the country still supports “amnesty”. And I would wager that 39% opposition is 25% far right and 14% far left, give or take a few points. Which can be seen in the polls internals:
Partisan leanings also show a split on this divisive issue. When back taxes are included, two-thirds of Democrats (65%) favor this program as do 56 percent of Independents. Republicans are split straight down the middle as 49 percent favor it and 49 percent oppose it.
The 25% “majority” marches on, splitting the GOP in half and making it impotent on all other issues.
Update: OK, now a third poll.
In the study, respondents stated that they strongly agreed with the statement, “The nation’s immigration system was broken,†with a rating of eight (8.03) on a ten point scale. They also felt (6.9) that “Building more fences will not stop the flow of immigrants into the U.S.â€
Most favored the statement, “A legal path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship should be available to all immigrants who have built a life in this country.†Two-thirds (66.6%) of those surveyed expressed their support and only about one-in-four (26%) disagreed with the statement.
All these folks must be working for Ted Kennedy of course, that is the only reason the same result keeps coming up. Folks, you can only cook the polls so much and MAYBE move them 5-7 points. We are not in the 5-7 point range. And there is that mid 20’s number again. Imagine that?
Sorry for the repeat post
Sue
I consider it a victory for those of us who oppose this bill in its present form. I certainly don’t oppose all of the bill, and given a true debate on it, I think they could salvage it.
I feel the same way, actually there are only two things I think would need to be changed to make it palatable, actually a good bill.
1. Let them register as in the present bill, but instead of a 24 hour background check, make it a check conditional on getting clearance, no matter how long it takes, meanwhile they would have temporary legal status until clearance is obtained. If a limit is needed, say 18 months, but if ever, at anytime a criminal past became known, it would revoke the legal status.
2. A path to citizenship could only be allowed using the exact same conditions as exist today with the applicants falling in line exactly where they would using existing applications.
Nothing in the border security would have to be changed except one thing, it would have to be written so it’s not optional, as it is in present form and it would require completion of last years fence bill in addition to the new requirements listed in this bill.
That last is not really a change other than it is mandatory and not optional.
These things, and I would be for it.
But you know why these changes won’t be made, because they want them all to have amnesty and my proposal wouldn’t permit it.
Absolutely ludicrous!!!
Only a person with a laughing disorder would think it is ludicrous to not want to give criminals legal status.
what the hell is the world coming too?
So you’re ‘in favor of’ giving this guy a pass?
If he hasn’t been caught, as you mentioned in your scenario, then he IS NOT in the system. The Guatemalan government did not catch him. How do you expect the USA to even flag him as a criminal if he isnt even caught? No background check would flag him.
Your scenario does not address the issue you are raising.
Here is my final attempt to explain my point:
You wrote,
quote:
“… and I didn’t get caught (they don’t know, in Guatamala who did the crimes) and get safely into the US…”
end quote.
Now if Guatamala doesn’t know you committed the crime, how do you expect the US to know. Perhaps US-INS employs mind readers?
HA HA HA
AJ
I was not panicking, I was just trying to relate points I heard during the debate that might be of interest to some.
Nothing more Nothing less.
And Merlin,
I was simply pointing out how minor the points were in the big scheme of things. Which, by the way, is why all the handwringing amounts to nothing compared to all the progress inherent in this bill. It was the fatal mistake of the far right to use wild doom and gloom scenarios built upon minor technicalities (and the reality of life that nothing is perfect) as cover for their real affliction – they don’t like the illegal immigrants and want them gone.
The more exaggerated the claim the more ridiculous they looked, just to give them the benefit of the doubt something else was not driving them. The claims became more exaggerated as they previous ones were knocked down or answered. Either way, exaggerating or covering up for something else, the GOP is looking really bad.
Reader makes a good point, no background check, no matter how intense or detailed will catch anyone, American or otherwise if they are not in the system.
For instance, Gary Ridgeway was able to get away with killing more than 40 women in the Green River area because he had no criminal record. Anytime his vehicle was seen and the plates were run, nothing came back. This man was a United States citizen with a family and a home and a job. He lived in the open, without making any real effort to hide the fact that he frequented areas where prostitutes hung out.
I worked with a LPN here in Indiana, named Orvil Lynn Majors, who was convicted for killing several elderly people. He did PRN work for our agency and I knew the man. I had not a clue that he was capable of doing something like that. He is a local guy, went to school here in Indiana and he had never been in any kind of trouble. No background check would have flagged him.
The purpose of these kinds of background checks that the government is talking about, is to find criminals in the system. Just like when a cop pulls you over for speeding and then runs your information to make sure there are no outstanding warrants, that does not take days.
But the interesting thing about this debate, besides being called a nazi by self righteous anally rententive fanatics who get hung up on jig vs gig, is that the people doing the most bitching and whining and moaning have do not have a plan that is anymore complicated than build a wall and enforce the laws. What they will do differently in terms of those laws so that they will be enforced is a mystery the rest of us are not privy to.
No they will just make the whatchamcallit law thingees work right because they are true blue Americans. The actual details are beside the point.
For instance under their scenario, the guy in question could find a way to sneak in the country and blend right in with the millions of people they intend to ignore and no one would be the wiser. It is not as if they have an alternative plan that actually makes anyone any safer from such a predator.
AJ is right, they do not like the illegals, but like lsu pointed out the same people who do not like the illegals are not going to go to New Orleans and force the thousands working on clean up to leave. They want to use them when they need them and still retain the right to despise them.
Terrye, running a background check is NOT defined as “seeing if they have any outstanding warrants” against them.
There are thousands of people that can not get security clearances that don’t have outstanding warrants. People that belong to an Islamo-Fascist cell may not have outstanding warrants, but they can be “known” and a thorough security check would not give them clearance.
All the people that came into the country illegally don’t have outstanding warrants for that little detail, even if they committed a felony while also entering illegally.(such as bringing in dope).
Knowing what you do about Gary Ridgeway, if he were not a citizen, would you be in favor of granting citizenship to him? You seem to think it would be okay, but clear that up. Would you?
Why would you be opposed to an adequate, not limited to 24 hours, background check being made? Is the objective to find out if they or undesirable or is it not? What happens if you find out 30 hours later that they had a record? still give them legal status or not? If you say no, then why not allow 31 hours for the security clearance. Are we talking about minor points? Whether a person is worthy to become a US citizen is the only valid point in the whole damn bill, so it’s not minor to allow “as long as it takes”.
And see, I said all that and didn’t call you any names or proclaim the sky is falling.