CONGRESS

Public Wants Immigrants to Be Able to Stay

.photo.left{display:none;}

Protestors march outside the Alabama Capitol during a demonstration against Alabama's immigration law in Montgomery, Ala., Tuesday Nov. 15, 2011. Federal courts have blocked parts of the Republican-backed law from taking effect, but both supporters and critics still call it the nation's toughest state law against illegal immigration. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)  
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
Dec. 6, 2011, 4:30 p.m.

As the de­bate over im­mig­ra­tion con­tin­ues to roil the Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial field, a sub­stan­tial ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans say they would prefer to al­low some or all il­leg­al im­mig­rants to re­main in the United States, the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll has found.

When asked what should be done with the roughly 11 mil­lion il­leg­al im­mig­rants in the coun­try, just 25 per­cent of those polled said that they should all be de­por­ted “no mat­ter how long they have been in the U.S.”

An­oth­er 28 per­cent of those sur­veyed said that all il­leg­al im­mig­rants should be al­lowed “to stay, provided they have broken no oth­er laws and com­mit to learn­ing Eng­lish and U.S. his­tory.” The largest group, at 39 per­cent, said that the United States should “de­port some, but al­low those who have been here for many years and have broken no oth­er laws to stay here leg­ally.”

The United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll was con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al from Dec. 1 to 4; it in­ter­viewed 1,008 adults by land­line and cell phone. It has a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 3.7 per­cent­age points.

The poll’s three op­tions on im­mig­ra­tion cor­res­pond ap­prox­im­ately to the po­s­i­tions of the three lead­ing fig­ures in the 2012 pres­id­en­tial race. Former House Speak­er Newt Gin­grich, now emer­ging as the GOP front-run­ner, has ad­voc­ated the third op­tion: He ar­gues that long­time il­leg­al im­mig­rants who have broken no oth­er laws should be gran­ted a right to stay in the coun­try, al­though without cit­izen­ship, by loc­al com­munity boards.

Mitt Rom­ney, the erstwhile Re­pub­lic­an front-run­ner, has aligned him­self closest to the first op­tion. He has said that Gin­grich’s plan amounts to am­nesty and that all il­leg­al im­mig­rants should re­ceive no spe­cial priv­ileges in ap­ply­ing for cit­izen­ship, al­though he has been some­what vague on wheth­er he be­lieves they should be re­quired to leave the coun­try be­fore do­ing so.

Pres­id­ent Obama, like most Demo­crats, has ar­gued that all il­leg­al im­mig­rants who have com­mit­ted no oth­er crime should be provided a path­way to cit­izen­ship, so long as they meet cer­tain re­quire­ments, such as learn­ing Eng­lish.

In the sur­vey, the views of Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic voters di­verged some­what but gen­er­ally over­lapped more than the rhet­or­ic of each party’s na­tion­al lead­ers. This is con­sist­ent with oth­er polling that has reg­u­larly shown that even a sub­stan­tial por­tion of the GOP elect­or­ate views mass de­port­a­tion as un­work­able.

In the Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, just 33 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans sup­por­ted de­port­ing all ileg­al im­mig­rants. That’s sig­ni­fic­antly more than the 15 per­cent of Demo­crats who backed that ap­proach. In a roughly mir­ror im­age, just 19 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans wanted to al­low all il­leg­al im­mig­rants to stay, com­pared with 32 per­cent of Demo­crats. In both parties, though, the largest group aligned be­hind the choice Gin­grich has cham­pioned: al­low­ing long-term il­leg­al im­mig­rants who have not broken any oth­er law to re­main. Forty-three per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans and 42 per­cent of Demo­crats backed that op­tion. In­de­pend­ents split al­most evenly between the three op­tions.

Sim­il­arly, while the res­ults con­tained im­port­ant ra­cial dif­fer­ences, the gap was not as large as it was on some oth­er is­sues. Even among whites, just 28 per­cent sup­port de­port­ing all il­leg­al im­mig­rants, while 24 per­cent want to al­low all to re­main, and 40 per­cent want to de­port some.

The poll also found pub­lic skep­ti­cism about an­oth­er con­ser­vat­ive pri­or­ity. Last month, the House passed le­gis­la­tion re­quir­ing any state that al­lows res­id­ents to carry con­cealed weapons to re­cog­nize the con­cealed-carry per­mits gran­ted by every oth­er state. That le­gis­la­tion at­trac­ted 58 votes when Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., offered it in the Sen­ate in 2009, and his staff says he is con­sid­er­ing op­tions to at­tach the pro­pos­al to oth­er le­gis­la­tion now.

The poll presen­ted re­spond­ents with brief ar­gu­ments for and against the idea, not­ing: “Sup­port­ers say this is ne­ces­sary to en­sure people au­thor­ized to carry con­cealed weapons in their own state can pro­tect them­selves wherever they are,” while “Op­pon­ents say it would un­der­mine each state’s abil­ity to set its own stand­ards for who can carry guns, like age or train­ing re­quire­ments.”

After hear­ing those ar­gu­ments, 49 per­cent of adults said they op­posed the le­gis­la­tion and be­lieved it “should not be­come law.” Just 40 per­cent said they sup­por­ted it. The idea pre­cip­it­ated a sharp gender gap: Al­though men sup­por­ted it by a nar­row 47 per­cent to 45 per­cent plur­al­ity, wo­men op­posed it by a sol­id 53 per­cent to 33 per­cent ma­jor­ity. Whites nar­rowly op­posed the idea, while minor­it­ies res­isted it by a lar­ger mar­gin.

Edu­ca­tion among whites marked an­oth­er im­port­ant di­vid­ing line. The con­cealed-weapons bill drew sup­port from a plur­al­ity of whites without four-year de­grees (and sup­port from nearly three-fifths of such non­col­lege men). Mean­while, col­lege-edu­cated whites op­posed the pro­pos­al by 2-to-1.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
22 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
23 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×