What effect does the immigration issue have on how you will vote in November?

Question

NEW POLL: IMMIGRATION KEY ISSUE IN CONTESTED RACES
Center for Immigration Studies : October 16 , 2006 -- by Steven Camarota

Public Wants Illegals to Go Home, Enforcement, No Immigration Increase
A new poll, using neutral language, finds intense voter concern over immigration in 14 tight congressional races. The surveys were conducted by the polling company inc. for the Center for Immigration Studies.

In addition to a national survey, detailed polling on immigration was conducted in four contested Senate races: Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Montana; and in 10 contested House races: Arizona 5th, Connecticut 4th, Indiana 8th, Kentucky 4th, Pennsylvania 6th, Texas 17th, Louisiana 3rd, Georgia 8th, Colorado 7th, and Ohio 6th.

The complete results are online at www.cis.org. Among the findings:

* Immigration is a big issue throughout the country. Of likely voters nationally, 53 percent said immigration was either their most important issue or one of their top three issues, while just 8 percent said it was not at all important. With the exception of CT-4th, in races surveyed only about 10 percent of voters said it was not important at all.

* When told numbers, voters want less immigration. When told the actual number of immigrants here (legal and illegal) and the number coming (legal and illegal), and asked to put aside the question of legal status, 68 percent of voters nationally thought immigration was too high, 21 percent about right, and just 2 percent thought it was too low. In every congressional race surveyed, the share who said overall immigration was too low was in the single digits.

* Voters less likely to vote for immigration-increasing candidates. Experts agree that the bill passed by the Senate earlier this year would at least double future legal immigration, yet 70 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to double legal immigration. Overwhelming majorities in every battleground race feel the same way.

* Voters reject both extremes -- legalization or mass deportations. Some previous polls have shown support for legalizing illegal immigrants. But those polls have given the public only a choice between large-scale deportations or ''earned legalization,'' and not the third choice of across-the-board enforcement, causing illegals to go home. This third option, which is the basis of the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, is voters' top choice.

* House immigration plan by far the favorite. Enforcement approaches with no increase in legal immigration were the most popular policy option -- 44 percent wanted enforcement that causes illegals to go home, the House approach, and another 20 percent wanted large-scale deportations. Just 31 percent supported legalization of illegal immigrants.

* Intensity greater among enforcement supporters. Nationally, 32 percent of voters said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate who would enforce the law and cause illegals to go home, compared to just 15 percent who said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate who supports legalization. This same pattern holds in battleground House contests.

* Voters skeptical of need for unskilled immigrant labor. More than 70 percent of voters nationally agreed that there were ''plenty of Americans to do low-wage jobs that require relatively little education, employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better to attract Americans,'' compared to 21 percent who said we need immigrants because there were not enough Americans to do all such jobs. The results were very similar in all the contested states and districts surveyed.

* Voters think lack of enforcement is reason for illegal immigration. Three out of four voters in the nation agreed that the reason we have illegal immigration is that past enforcement efforts have been ''grossly inadequate.'' Voters strongly reject the argument that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive legal immigration policies. Strong majorities in every battleground contest surveyed felt this way.

* Numbers make a difference. One key finding is that when told the scale of immigration (legal and illegal), voters overwhelmingly thought it was too high. Also, when told how much the Senate bill would increase legal immigration, voters tended to reject it. This would seem to undermine the argument that voters are only concerned about illegality and not the level of immigration. The levels of immigration used in the questions are those widely agreed upon by experts based on government data.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/reportcardintro.html

Use the link above to find out your politicians positions on immigration. Are they part of the problem or part of the solution?

Answer 1

I will certainly vote against candidates that are not pro-immigration. However, that is not my main concern in this mid-term election. . .

Answer 2

I will be voting for politicians that want to take care of however means necessary to control illegal immigration. I have lived in areas with illegals and although they "supposedly" do jobs Americans will not do (just an excuse for cheap employers). Immigrants put little back into the economy. They live 10-15 in a trailer (which the employers provide cheaply, pay little rent and send the rest back home. Some have mulitple homes living rich, yes they may start of being poor but so many of them come back and forth multiple times. Some even have visas and still are making it rich in their own countries. I think we should only have school visas not work until the unemployment rate is at 0%. They may be paying into the taxes by using illegal ssn but in the long run they are working to be wealthy elsewhere. Farmers are using this cheap labor yet produce is getting expensive, $2 for a tomato, $5 for a bag of potatoes, $5 for a pint of strawberries....come on, too many employers exploiting immigrants. Employers and landlords who are hiring and harboring illegals should be heavily fined and do jail time. More investigations should be done not enough is being done to lessen this burden on our nation.

Answer 3

Have you ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)?

The state of Texas had created a law (May 1975) requiring that all children enrolled in the public schools be either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants -- prohibiting illegals. A little more than two years later a lawsuit was filed in Tyler, TX challenging the law as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. All three levels of the federal courts came to the same basic conclusion -- the law is unconstitutionally discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was by a narrow margin, 5 to 4, with Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, for himself and Justices Blackmun, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens. (In previous cases, Justices Blackmun and Powell had taken the view that the state may constitutionally ban legal immigrants from jobs as police officers (Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978)) and that getting an education is not a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)).) My "favorite" (note the sarcasm) part of Brennan's opinion for the Court is, "It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." What a swell job of understanding the motives of the Texas legislature.

Six years after the Plyler decision, Professor David P. Currie, writing a two-volume text called "The Constitution in the Supreme Court," had harsh words for this particular decision. He wrote, "With all due respect, this is carrying solicitude a little far. Public resources are scarce and those who have no business being here can have poor claim on them. I may have a right to keep a burglar out of my house, the Court appears to be saying, but once he is there I must invite him to dinner."

This ruling by the Court is one the MANY reasons I have for disliking the SC. And my dislike is so STRONG that it keeps me away from the voting booth. I didn't vote in 2004 and I won't vote next month and I'll probably never vote again. Because of the SC.

Answer 4

Illegal immigration is the number one issue. If we can't secure the borders, we have lost the war on terrorists. The government can listen to calls all day, it won't help if they just walk into the country. Turning illegals into immigrants is not the answer. Immigration also needs to be balanced to keep it a melting pot and not a third world country.

Answer 5

Mass deportation is just a ruse, Nobody is going to round up 12,000,000 people all at once. They'll be sent back gradually as they are caught just like now

Answer 6

It has a huge effect for me. With all of the money they're trying to spend on building fences they could afford to deport them. I'm sure Americans would volunteer to personally drive them back over the border.

Answer 7

I think we should concern on how right wingers like you try to use yahoo answers to influence people. This is a game, not a fascist forum.

Answer 8

Don't even bother voting, because THIS secret and evil group has been in control of everything for far too long!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm

Answer 9

I will not vote for anyone that is pro-illegal.....it's disgraceful for any person to choose an illegal over ANY American!

Answer 10

send them back to there home land