Just 16% believe that the Senate Bill will reduce immigration according to poll. What do you think?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070530/pl_rasmussen/immigrationbill20070530_1

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 16% of American voters believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate bill is passed. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree. That figure includes 41% who believe the Senate bill will actually lead to an increase in illegal immigration."

Wickedlooks, take a look at the poll write up itself. It says a majority disaproves of the bill. They think the PURPOSE of reform is to reduce illegal immigration, and this doesn't do it.

Fred, I am with you. What use are triggers if legalization is given on day 2 after only 24 hours to run a background check, regardless of how many appear at once? And what good are enforcement provisions when there is a 'humanitarian' exception throughout, and we all know it would be hard to take anyone from a life they created, however illegally. And then there is the 'sense of congress' to accelerate SPP, which to my mind was an unconstitutional treaty never brought before Congress to begin with.

Vote. But vote smart.

Answer 1

Talking amongst people I know, this stat appears fairly accurate. Rasmussen tends to do a very good job in compiling data.
I have read about 50% of the bill myself so far. It is a difficult thing to read because it modifies dozens of other bills which also have to be read to understand the context. From what I have read, the 16% are absolutely wrong. The Senators all seem to have strong opinions regarding this Bill, but I wonder if any Senator has actually read it.

Based on this Bill, an illegal can stay in the US indefinitely, never become a US citizen and never pay any fines. Sounds like amnesty to me.
Every possible deterrent to illegal immigration is countered with a potential "waiver" from the Director of Homeland Security or the Attorney General's office.
The bill talks about sending National Guard members to the border, but it is subtley worded that they can only be there to "train" for enforcement or to back up others in training - not actually assist in enforcing border security. A Guard member can only be there for 21 days/year and not past 2009. Guard members can only be called to serve by a combined agreement between the Governor of a border state and the Director of Homeland Security - an event which will likely never occur.
This bill repeals a 1996 law which requires states that provide "in state tuition" to illegal aliens also to provide the same rates to American students from other states. The repeal is retroactive so that American students can not sue a university for violating the 1996 statutes.
I have barely scratched the surface here. This Bill is so bad, it would take another 350 pages to explain why it is so bad.

One respondent in this list suggests that no one vote for anyone because the politicians don't care what you think. That is very bad advice. You should do the opposite. Find out who is the Chairperson for your county's Republican or Democratic Central committe (usually posted on the state's web site). Find out when their meetings are and attend. Speak your mind - get involved.
Why let the 16% determine what the other 84% have to live with?

Answer 2

When Ronald Reagan gave amnesty back in the late ‘80s, it didn’t prevent illegal immigration. Had the previous amnesty bill decreased illegal immigration to the United States, we wouldn’t have 12-20 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S.A. today.

The previous amnesty bill rewarded, so to speak, illegal immigrants for breaking our laws. This was seen as an incentive by the masses across the world. The result: Illegal immigration increased to the United States, and increased by a lot with the incentive.

The same thing will happen if this new outrageous amnesty bill passes: Illegal immigration will increase. And our government, being very incompatent, won’t seal off our borders with a wall. They say they’ll add extra fenses, but that still won’t cover the whole border. Just go to Google Earth and zoom onto the border-areas; you’ll see vast amounts unprotected. Moreover, 40% of all illegals came to the United States with over-stayed visas or green-cards; the senate and Jorge Boosh said they wanted to increase the amount of foreign work-visas and green-cards, which will, in turn, increase illegal immigration.

This amnesty bill is flawed on so many levels.

Answer 3

Well a poll is a poll is a poll as the old saying goes.But I think those are actually pretty accurate.16 % is actually pretty good given the record of 1986.And it's almost in line with other political polls with other subjects being polled.And only 41% believe it will increase illegal immigration so that means OVER HALF believe it will keep things in check.Not bad.So I guess the majority of Americans aren't opposed to at least giving it a chance.

Answer 4

What provisions are in the bill to actually prevent or discourage illegal immigration?? That is THE key question.

1. Does it have provisions to EFFECTIVELY secure the border??
2. Does it have provisions to AGGRESSIVELY prosecute employers knowingly hire illegal aliens?
3. Does it have provisions to PROSECUTE those that knowingly rent or sell houses or property to illegal aliens?
4. Does it have provisions DENYING any monetary assistance to illegal aliens by any governmental agency for any reason?
5. Does it have provisions to track down illegal aliens through their job, housing, or credit information?

If not, and unless these provisions are enforced, it's effectively just an amnesty with no "teeth", and will not fix the problems, only delay it for another time or another administration to deal with.

Illegal immigration WILL NOT be reduced or eliminated unless these provisions are enacted and/or enforced into the "bill".


We know the goal of the whole bill is to try to appease American voters while at the same time appeasing illegal aliens and minorities so they get votes (Republicans and Democrats alike).

The problem, they are doing it no matter the consequences to AMERICA.

Fred is very much correct!! Citizens need to get involved!!!

Answer 5

talking among human beings i comprehend, this stat seems somewhat precise. Rasmussen has a tendency to do an somewhat good interest in compiling archives. I even have study 50% of the bill myself so far. it somewhat is a confusing element to study with the aid of fact it modifies dozens of alternative expenditures which additionally could desire to be study to comprehend the context. From what I even have study, the sixteen% are somewhat incorrect. The Senators all look to have good evaluations on the topic of this bill, yet i ponder whether any Senator has somewhat study it. in step with this bill, an unlawful can stay in the U. S. indefinitely, never grow to be a US citizen and not pay any fines. sounds like amnesty to me. each and every a risk deterrent to unlawful immigration is countered with a ability "waiver" from the Director of place of beginning protection or the lawyer time-honored's workplace. The bill talks approximately sending national safeguard members to the border, whether it somewhat is subtley worded that they could basically be there to "prepare" for enforcement or to returned up others in preparation - not somewhat help in implementing border protection. A safeguard member can basically be there for 21 days/twelve months and not previous 2009. safeguard members can basically be noted as to serve by potential of a mixed contract between the Governor of a border state and the Director of place of beginning protection - an journey which will possibly never happen. This bill repeals a 1996 regulation which demands states that grant "in state training" to unlawful extraterrestrial beings additionally to offer an identical expenditures to American scholars from different states. The repeal is retroactive so as that American scholars can not sue a school for violating the 1996 statutes. I even have somewhat scratched the floor here. This bill is so undesirable, it may take yet another 350 pages to describe why it is so undesirable. One respondent in this checklist potential that no person vote for all of us with the aid of fact the politicians do not care what you think of. it fairly is extremely undesirable suggestion. you're able to desire to do the choice. discover out who's the Chairperson on your county's Republican or Democratic valuable committe (in many circumstances published on the state's information superhighway website). discover out while their conferences are and attend. talk your suggestions - become in touch. Why enable the sixteen% determine what the different 80 4% could desire to stay with?

Answer 6

That's a good poll. Its nice to have current data.

Its just too bad only 26% of people polled favor passage of the bill and that so few people believe it will have any effect on reducing immigration.

Oh well, I guess Congress will try again next year, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that.....

Answer 7

If you made all criminal acts null and void and therefore never prosecute in one year, then yes the crime stats would go down. DUH!!!. You gotta be bagging me on this crap!I can't believe there will be any decrease at all. But when you deduct 12 million from the additional 6 million coming in for free, then I guess you could say it is a 50% reduction. Modern math I guess.

This is the biggest ram in the hiney snowjob anyone has ever pulled off on the American public. I am not worried about jobs so much as bennies recieved will break our country. That is happening now without an " amnesty" They won't call it that but I'd like to see how they spin it according to a dictionary version of " amnesty".

Answer 8

Its going to open the Floodgates, Hope they Flood
Hyanis Port with so many illegals, that Ted Kennedy, will have to switch to drinking Tequila.

Answer 9

The only ones that believe that farce are the Kennedys and the Bushes,that's where your 16% comes from

Answer 10

I say everyone stops voting for anyone. They are only interested in getting back in to power, whether Dems or Repubs. I am thoroughly disgusted with both parties. They are pandering and want their power and jobs. They are not interested in what we have to say.