April 11, 2006

AMERICANS FOR AMNESTY:

Public divided over how to treat illegals (Susan Page and Kathy Kiely, 4/11/2006, USA TODAY)

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found a majority of those surveyed want to make it a crime for foreigners to immigrate illegally to the USA and for Americans to help those illegal immigrants once they arrive.

Still, nearly two-thirds also say the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over time. [...]

When it comes to whether illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the USA and become citizens:

•Those who are immigrants or have at least one parent who is an immigrant are more likely to support the idea; 71% do so, compared with 62% among those whose parents were native-born.

•Among Democrats, 68% support citizenship for illegal immigrants, as do 65% of independents. Among Republicans, a 55% majority endorse the idea.

•By region, those in the West are most favorable, at 67% support. Those in the Midwest are least supportive, at 57%.

•Women are more supportive than men, 67% vs. 58%.


The obvious solution is to boost legal immigration quotas so high they can't ever be filled, but we maintain the fiction that we have them and use the theoretical limits and the more regular process to screen out political undesirables.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2006 7:12 AM
Comments

How do we welcome those who favor asimilacin while keeping out the reconquistadors?

Posted by: Gideon at April 11, 2006 7:39 AM

There's no need to do so; the reconquistadors are few in number, and completely delusional.
They have no chance whatsoever of succeeding.

They might as well plan to colonize Mars, and make that a new Aztec homeland.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 7:46 AM

Gideon:

We don't. We either breed above replacement and restore the citizen-making role of education or it's theirs anyway.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 7:47 AM

Michael - that's not the image one gets when watching the protests with Mexican flags waiving and local govt officials bending over backward not to alienate these people.

Posted by: AWW at April 11, 2006 9:04 AM

Another note re polls - polls are all over the place on this issue depending on how the question is asked. Right-leaning blog sites are qouting polls showing majorities don't want any type of amnesty and every effort should be made to restrict illegal immigration. And note that this was a weekend poll which usually means more Dems sampled which means more favorable attitude toward amnesty.

OJ's approach of increasing legal immigration levels makes sense but there will also be people who don't want to go through the legal process.

Posted by: AWW at April 11, 2006 9:07 AM

AWW:

Those are people who want immigrants from Mexico to be able to come to the U.S. and become citizens, not people who want to give the American Southwest back to Mexico.
It's the exact opposite.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 9:30 AM

use the theoretical limits and the more regular process to screen out political undesirables.

That means we have to fund immigration enforcement (officers, facilities, etc) at a much higher level. Do you see the political will to do so? I don't.

Posted by: kevin whited at April 11, 2006 9:36 AM

Michael

You're saying that Mexicans want their destiny, the laws they live under, to be decided by Anglo's even though they have an arguable claim to a large swath of the US based on the history of their people.

Sorry, but I have doubts that is likely, especially when seeing the rise of Mestizo and Amerindian political movements in Peru, Columbia, Venzueala, and Bolivia.

When you factor in the fact that our country seems to be dedicated to multi-culturism, I see considerable problems in the future.

Posted by: h-man at April 11, 2006 10:29 AM

Mexicans that emigrate to the U.S. mostly want economic opportunity, and they see as well as anyone that Anglos do a much better job of providing it.

There are some loud activists, but no popular support for Aztlan.

Mexicans have no claim whatsoever to the American Southwest. The "history of their people" is a long record of losing battles and wars.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 10:58 AM

Yeah. Ask an Apache about Mexico's "claim" on Texas & west of there -- Before gringo got there the Apache regularly handed the Mex their rear ends.

Posted by: Twn at April 11, 2006 11:28 AM

That's a relief, they will only do the rational thing.

Ahn except....then how do you explain the demagoguery of Chavez and Evo Morales and its success? They must be thinking their message of socialism and antagonism to Anglos appeals to someone.

Posted by: h-man at April 11, 2006 11:34 AM

Kevin:

No, but by legalizing the ones who go through regular channels you have a real weapon against the undesirables who don't--which we then use at our discretion.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 11:38 AM

It appeals everywhere.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 11:40 AM

Americans don't necessarily want to deport people already in this country. What they want is effective border security to keep them out. If that happens, the people will be quite generous to ones that are here - but that depends on the border being fixed.

What they want more than anything is an end to future immigration. Not only to stop all illegal immigrants, but I suspect most Americans would like to see the number of legal immigrants dramatically reduced.

OJ's insistence to simply open the borders and legalizing everyone is precisely what Americans don't want.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 11, 2006 12:04 PM

Chavez's "success" will only last as long as the oil revenues do, and at the rate that he's letting Venezuela's industrial infrastructure collapse, that'll be less than ten years.

I could write a long post about Bolivia, Morales, and the U.S., but suffice it to say that Evo's success there holds no lessons or warnings for America.
It's apples and watermelons.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 12:06 PM

Chris:

They say they do and we do just that every twenty years now.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 12:08 PM

The American public has only slightly more chance of stopping immigration than I do of laying golden eggs.

Whatever the unwashed masses profess to want, the bottom line is that they won't pay what it'd cost to actually accomplish.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 12:09 PM
you have a real weapon against the undesirables who don't--which we then use at our discretion
Which will be never. I will note again that the Congressional Democracts openly oppose forbidding amnesty to illegal immigrants who have been convicted of felonies while in the USA. If we can't use the weapon against those, who can we? Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 11, 2006 3:20 PM

Wrong, we use it now.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 3:26 PM

I think I'm stealing this from Mickey Kaus, but isn't the obvious bill to pass now a tough border enforcement bill that calls for the building of an impregnable fence as soon as possible (i.e., sometime during the next administration)?

Posted by: David Cohen at April 11, 2006 5:04 PM
« POLER OPPOSITE: | Main | SO INSTEAD THEY'RE DOING "THE UNSINKABLE GIULIANA SGRENA": »