The Raw Politics of Immigration Reform Should Lead to Legislation

There are numerous reasons why it would be wise for Washington to address the nation&'s failed immigration policies sooner rather than later and finally fix a system that no one on either end of the political spectrum believes is either functioning properly or serving the best interests of the people . Even though studies show that reforming immigration would be a boost to the economy at a time when it could surely use one, and human rights issues make reforming the system a moral imperative, many still believe that it's an issue too politically hot to handle.

Since nothing yet has provided the requisite motivation to those in Washington to move forward and tackle reform, it&'s time to start to look at it through a prism they can understand: Pure Machiavellian political calculation.

As has been rightly pointed out, reform cannot be a one party affair, and to get it accomplished there will have to be some reaching across the aisle and bipartisan compromise. Yet, given the current polarization in Washington, accomplishing such a task might seem to be impossible ... until of course we look at the alternatives.

It's quite obvious at this point that the American electorate is furious, with discontent across the political spectrum from left to right ... and more importantly the middle.

Confidence in Washington is approaching record lows with few having faith in elected officials to fix the serious problems facing the nation. 60% believe that the country's heading in the wrong direction. The elation of 2008 that a new era of change was upon us, and that the gridlock and partisan politics of the past might finally give way to effective governance, has quickly given way to distrust and cynicism.

Those from both parties now face an angry public more intent than ever to throw the bums out of office.

On the right, all but the most hard-core reactionary conservatives face challenges from the far-right extremes of their party. In Florida, one-time party favorite, Charlie Crist, looks like toast with teabagger Marco Rubio crushing him in the polls. Former standard bearer, John McCain, daily tries to distance himself from every past position he's ever held in hopes of warding off primary defeat. In NY23 the pitchfork and torch crowd lunched a successful coup, driving out the party favorite, ultimately handing the election to the opposition.

Fueled by the vitriolic rants of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and living in an information isolation-bubble created by the FOX News noise machine, the angry mob has become emboldened and threatens to tear their party apart in a frenzy of fratricide.

On the left, the inability of the administration and its Congressional allies to deliver on their promise to usher in a new era in Washington has had a different effect. While the right-wing base is energized, the historic coalition that Obama built of youth, ethnic voters, and independents is withering away due to ambivalence and disillusion.

As we saw in NJ, VA, and most recently in MA, the Obama coalition simply failed to show up at the polls. And those that did were the disenchanted independents still looking for change who thought they'd find it in a pick-up truck driving, faux-populist, "independent Republican."

But as much as both parties are having problems with their respective bases, it's the magic 40+% unaffiliated voters who now create the most problems for both.

They're sick and tired of the partisan bickering, political posturing, and gridlock that prevail in Washington.

They're scared. They see a faltering economy, endless wars, high unemployment and an uncertain future, and they want something done.

They watched the protracted political sausage making that mired down the health care debate, the convoluted economics of the stimulus bill, and the daily theater of the absurd as obstructionist Republicans did everything in their power to derail an Obama presidency ... and they're fed up.

They want to clean house, and few incumbents will be safe from their wrath.

Realizing this, both parties have telegraphed their electoral strategies.

Republicans will attempt to run as outsiders, trying to convince voters that somehow Washington careerists are in fact, fresh faces with new ideas, all along stalling and trying their damnedest to prevent anything from getting accomplished that might make Obama look good.

The Democrats, with Obama in the lead, will hammer away on those very same stall tactics and try to lay the blame for all the gridlock and partisan rancor in Washington at the Republican's feet.

But both these plans contain Achilles heels that could doom them to failure.

As a new poll just released by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans shows, the base has moved so far to the extreme they could become toxic for incumbents in all but the reddest of red states. Particularly given Obama's still very high personal popularity.

• 63% think Obama is a socialist
• only 42% believe he was born in US
• 39% want Obama impeached.
• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama
• 23% want to secede from US
• 24% believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win
• 31% believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people
• 73% think gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools
• 31% want contraceptives outlawed

In order to paint themselves as outsiders, Republicans, who make up only 22.5% the electorate, will be forced to embrace those in their party who have already firmly staked out that ground ... the teabaggers and birthers who flocked to last summers town halls to "take their country back."

Having to cater to this constituency not only to ward off primary challenges or raise funds, but to appear "mavericky" enough, Republicans run the risk of alienating the independents and moderates essential to winning general elections. In many ways, in order to remain viable in general elections dominated by centrist independents, Republicans will need to distance themselves from what now appears to be the public face of their party.

A recent Gallup poll shows just how risky catering to the base could be. It's still a very blue country:

Overall, 49% of Americans in 2009 identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 41% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents In total, 23 states plus the District of Columbia can be classified as solidly Democratic, with a 10 percentage-point or greater advantage in party affiliation in favor of the Democrats. This includes most of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, most of the Great Lakes region, and the Pacific Coast.

Another 10 states can be considered Democratic leaning, in which the state's Democratic supporters outnumber Republican supporters by at least 5 percentage points but less than 10 points. These are Missouri, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, and Tennessee.

Four states are solidly Republican, with a better than 10-point advantage in Republican affiliation -- Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, and Idaho. Alabama qualifies as the lone Republican-leaning state, with a 6-point advantage in Republican affiliation.

That leaves 12 states that are competitive, with less than a 5-point advantage for either party. Among these 13 states, 6 tilt in a Republican direction: Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Texas, North Dakota, and Kansas. Six tilt toward the Democratic Party: Georgia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Gallup

Republicans would need to replicate their "Massachusetts Miracle" across the electoral map in order to succeed … something far easier to crow about, than do.

For Democrats, the "blame it all on the Republicans" strategy is risky also. Congressional Democrats' approval ratings are in the toilet, only slightly higher than the Republicans:

PARTY	APPROVE	DISAPPROVE
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS:	37	59
CONGRESSIONAL GOP:	21	63

This low standing in most part due to their perceived inability to get anything accomplished and getting mired down in the toxic partisan bickering that has marked this Congress.

Attempting now to point fingers at the opposition is a dicey proposition.

With all his substantial personal charms and political skills, even Obama would be walking the fine line between criticizing partisanship and engaging in it… A risky move even in a far less volatile political climate.

It's even riskier when attempted by far less well-liked and politically talented Democrats who run the risk of sounding like they're just making shrill excuses for their bad behavior.

But perhaps both parties would be better served if they actually just did the people's bidding and found a way to get something done. It would serve them well to roll up their sleeves and put partisan political gamesmanship aside long enough to get at least one piece of major legislation passed this session. It would be in both their political best interests.

Republican's would be able to defuse Democratic attacks about being obstructionists and have some claim to the middle at a time when the extreme base of the party appears to be anything but, and Democrats would prove they can get something done.

It's for this reason that the time to address immigration reform has come.

• It's the kind of "tough issue" that polls have constantly shown the American people want tackled.
• It has the support of a broad coalition that includes labor, business, and faith-based organizations.
• Good arguments have be made for the economic benefits of enacting reform
• The demographics work…neither party can survive long-term without the Latino and New American vote
• Polling shows the majority of Americans favor reform
• It's received bi-partisan support in the past
• Restrictionist campaigns have consistently failed at the polls

From a purely political point of view this seems to be a no-brainer.

 

 

 

-----------------

SOME USEFUL INFO ON REFORM

1. Fact Sheet: How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy
by the Center for American Progress

A fact sheet summarizing recent research on the benefits of legalization.

2. “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
By Raul Hinojosa for the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center

This report finds that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit—a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation-only policy would result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years.

3. Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
by Peter B. Dixon and Maureen T. Rimmer for the CATO Institute

A report which finds that legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion. 

4. The Economics of Immigration Reform: Legalizing Undocumented Workers a Key to Economic Recovery
by the Immigration Policy Center

April 2009 analysis of how legalization would protect our workers, raise wages, and get our economy moving again.

5. Policy Brief: New Immigration Reform Bill Supports America’s Middle Class
Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

A Legislative Analysis of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009(H.R. 4321) sponsored by Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and 92other co-sponsors

6. The Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
AFL-CIO and Change to Win

Announced in April 2009, this is the labor movements unified framework for comprehensive immigration reform.  This framework is a critical sign of support for the Administration and Congress to address immigration reform -- and to ensure that it remains a priority on the legislative calendar. It is also an important sign that immigration reform is an important part of economic recovery.

7. Loving Thy Neighbor: Immigration Reform and Communities of Faith
by Sam Fulwood III for the Center for American Progress

This report documents how  a wide range of faith groups are showing a new, unexpected, and grassroots-led social activism that’s rooted in theological and moral ground. While loud and shrill anti-immigrant voices dominate much of the media attention regarding immigrants and especially the undocumented, faith community activists are caring and praying in the shadows of public attention.

8. The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties
By Anita Khashu for the Police Executive Research Foundation

While this report focuses on and provides critique of the role of local police and immigration enforcement, one of the major findings is the need for enactment of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

 

 

Read More...

Summary only...

We should ask Colorado Republicans about new immigration poll findings

An interesting poll was published Monday in the Rocky Mountain News, not particularly surprising, but none the less interesting. It reflected the usual mix of feelings about the contentious immigration issue. 61% of Coloradans support an earned citizenship approach for undocumented immigrants, allowing them to stay in the country and eventually become citizens if they meet certain requirements like paying taxes and learning English. Only 15% favored deportation. Yet half said that immigration hurts the state more than it helps and a majority of respondents said that immigration was one of their top concerns along with the economy.

Nothing strange there. This poll generally reflects what similar polls show throughout the country. Respondents prefer a mix of "get tough" policies going forward and pragmatic compassion when it comes to the undocumented already living and working in the country.

But there was one interesting little fact buried down around paragraph twenty: "The typical voter who listed illegal immigration as the top issue this election is a suburban, white, Republican man without a college degree."

Who are these white suburban males who see immigrants as such a threat?



tags: immigration, Tom Tancredo , Rick O'Donnell , CO-6, CO-7, immigration poll


Perhaps Rick O'Donnell, running for a House seat in Colorado's seventh district might have the answer.

A couple of weeks ago a story came to light about a strange proposal the candidate made requiring all male high school seniors to forgo their last semester at school to do community service along the border helping deter the flow of undocumented immigrants. The former head of the Colorado Department of Higher Education's idea was roundly criticized in the press and by his opponent, but it did bring to light some glaring problems in the educational system Mr.O'Donnell was previously in charge of.

According to Mr. O'Donnell's own figures, less than half of Colorado's sixth- grade boys pass the writing CSAP compared to 62% of girls, in the tenth-grade close to forty percent of boys fail the reading CSAP, and the state has a staggering drop-out rate of 25%. Obviously under Mr. O'Donnell, who also "designed Colorado's nationally top-ranked accountability system for K-12 schools. (and) developed 'Read to Achieve' to ensure that no student leaves fourth grade without basic literacy skills" many of the states children, particularly boys, have been left behind by their educational system.

Mr. O'Donnell cited these failures as the reason his program of mandatory service program was necessary - to build character and foster self esteem in Colorado's lost boys.

But what does this have to do with the Rocky Mountain News' poll on immigration? Or the fact that "The typical voter who listed illegal immigration as the top issue this election is a suburban, white, Republican man without a college degree?"

These white Republican males without college degrees are Colorado's lost boys - now all grown up - they are the boys whom the education system failed.

Left with the limited job prospects available to those with only a high school education or less, these men now fear an influx of immigrant workers as a direct threat to their livelihoods. When a state fails so badly educating its children that one in four children don't even get a high school diploma, leaving them to compete for a decreasing number of low-skilled, low paying jobs, it's no small wonder that they would see immigrants as a threat, and immigration as a top priority.

Ironically if Mr. O'Donnell or his predecessors had done their job correctly, he wouldn't have the "immigration issue" now to base his campaign on.

The same could be said for his anti-immigration cohort, Tom Tancredo (CO-6). Perhaps if Tommy spent more time administering to the business of his state rather than strutting around the Mexican border hobnobbing with minutemen or singing "Dixie" with South Carolinian white separatists, more children would be properly educated in his state and wouldn't have to compete for jobs at MacDonalds or Walmart and fear that newly arrived immigrants will only add to that competition.


(A big hat-tip to alma mia for finding this story and catching the "white Republican male" reference buried deep in the story…Kudos)

Read More...

Summary only...

Two new polls look at Hispanic voters

In the past week two new polls were released looking at how Hispanic voters view the political landscape. With a major push underway to register new Latino voters, which could yield 14 mil new voters by 2008, the power of Latinos at the ballot box is becoming a growing concern for both political parties.

The polls, one of 2000 Hispanic adults taken by the Pew Hispanic Center, the other of Spanish-language dominant Hispanic voters by NDN’s Hispanic Strategy Center, are the first polls taken since the congressional debate heated up and the massive immigration rallies took place this past spring.

Both polls showed similar findings.




tags: immigration, polls, Pew Hispanic Center , NDN, HR4437, S.2611


According the Pew Hispanic Center:

Latinos are feeling more discriminated against, politically energized and unified following the immigration policy debate and the pro-immigration marches this spring, according to the 2006 National Survey of Latinos conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center.

More than half (54%) of Latinos surveyed say they see an increase in discrimination as a result of the policy debate, and three-quarters (75%) say the debate will prompt many more Latinos to vote in November. Almost two-thirds (63%) think the pro-immigrant marches this year signal the beginning of a new and lasting social movement. And a majority (58%) now believes Hispanics are working together to achieve common goals -- a marked increase from 2002, when 43% expressed confidence in Latino unity.

The 2006 National Survey of Latinos was conducted by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Hispanic adults from June 5 to July 3, 2006. The survey has a margin of error of 3.8% for the full sample.

The survey shows that Latinos to some extent are holding the Republican Party responsible for what they perceive to be the negative consequences of the immigration debate, but the political impact of that perception is uncertain. Party affiliation among Latino registered voters has not changed significantly since the spring of 2004. However, the share of Latinos who believe the Republican Party has the best position on immigration has dropped from 25% to 16% in that time, with virtually the entire loss coming among foreign-born Hispanics (28% vs. 12%), who potentially represent an important and growing pool of future voters.

At the same time, the survey provides little solace for the Democratic Party, which showed no significant gains among Hispanic registered voters and which by some measures has lost some support. If anything, the survey shows that a growing number of Latinos are dissatisfied with both of the major parties. For example, one out of every four Hispanics (25%) now believes that neither political party has the best position on immigration issues, more than triple the share (7%) who felt that way just two years ago. Among registered voters, the share picking neither party on immigration has increased from 9% in 2004 to 20% in the current survey.
Link

According to NDN's poll:

In a new national poll of Spanish-language dominant Hispanic voters, NDN’s Hispanic Strategy Center has found that the standing of President Bush and Republicans has dramatically declined with these critical swing voters, potentially wiping out Republican gains made during the Bush years.

While Republicans have suffered a great loss in their standing with this new important electorate, Democrats have made only modest gains and though well-liked are not well defined. To take advantage of this new opening, Democrats will need to invest resources to better define themselves to an electorate very open to hearing from them.

Additionally, the poll offers clear evidence that the immigration debate has increased this community’s participation in the civic life of their nation. More than half of those questioned say the issue will make it more likely that they will vote this year. A remarkable 25% of those surveyed state that they have taken part in recent public demonstrations for better immigration policies. It appears that millions of Hispanics are rising to the “today we march, tomorrow we vote” challenge offered by the leaders of community this year.

The poll, conducted by the New York-based market research firm LatinInsights, surveyed a 600-person national sample of Spanish-dominant Hispanic registered voters. It is the largest poll of Spanish-language dominant Hispanic voters we’ve come across. The poll was paid for by the NDN Political Fund.

-snip-

About 9% of all American voters today are Hispanic. Of this 9%, about half, or 4-5% of the overall American electorate, is Spanish-language dominant. Spanish-language dominant means that these voters prefer to speak in Spanish, though many of these voters are English competent.

-snip-

KEY FINDINGS

Key Finding 1: Hispanics are disappointed with Bush and unhappy with Republican government. Recent electoral gains made by Bush in this community have been wiped out.

No matter how the numbers are cut, President Bush and the Republicans have seen a dramatic eroding of their standing with Spanish-speaking Hispanic voters.

In 2004 Kerry beat Bush 59%-40% with all Hispanics, and 52%-48% with those Spanish-dominant. In this survey Hispanics confirmed the closeness of the 2004 result. When asked who “did you vote for in 2004?” the result came back 38%-36% Kerry-Bush.

When asked how they would vote if the Presidential election were held today, this group gives Democrats a remarkable 36-point advantage (59%-23%). For Republicans this is a dramatic drop from the 52%-48% Kerry-Bush result with the Spanish-speaking sub-group in 2004.

Bush’s standing with this group has plummeted. In the 2004 cycle, Bush regularly received a 60% favorable rating from Hispanics. In our survey this was reversed, as 38% see him favorably, 58% unfavorably, with 40% very unfavorable towards the President.

Democrats have a very significant advantage in favorability, with a 65%-25% favorable/ unfavorable result. Republicans come in at 41%-51% favorable/unfavorable. For the first time in any Hispanic poll we’ve seen, The Republican Party is seen more favorably than Bush. It is would not be a stretch to now say that President Bush has become a drag on the Republican Party with Hispanics.

A full 61% of our survey group believes the country is headed in the wrong direction. Only 27% say it is headed in the right direction.

On the issue that they see to be of greatest concern to the nation, the Iraq War, 69 % (69-27) are against the current policy, with 48% wanting the U.S. to leave immediately.

On the issue of greatest concern to the Hispanic community as a whole – immigration reform – only 15% believe that the current debate will make it more likely they vote Republican. Overall, the number identifying immigration and discrimination as major issues have increased substantially from previous years.

Remarkably, 86% of Hispanics say that the cost of living has increased in recent years, with 78% saying costs have increased for their family. The economy is cited as the area of 2nd greatest concern to the nation after the Iraq War.

Of 20 major issues tested, Democrats outperform Republicans on 17, including “family values,” “better use of my tax money”and “respects more my religious beliefs.” The loss of faith of Republican government to achieve things of value for the Hispanic community should be a major concern to the governing Party.

Key Finding 2: While making modest gains, Democrats have a lot of work to do.

While Democrats have made modest gains with this group, growing from 52% in 2004 to 59%, most of the movement this year has been away from Bush and the Republicans and not towards Democrats.

In a detailed issue battery, while consistently far ahead of Republicans, Democrats regularly under perform their 59% electoral performance and 65% Party favorability. This indicates that while Democrats are well-regarded by this electorate, they are not well defined.

For example, let’s look at immigration reform. Despite the strong advocacy of Senator Harry Reid and other Democrats for comprehensive immigration reform and the wide coverage of the Republican efforts to deport undocumented Hispanic from the country, more Hispanics say that the immigration debate will not effect how they will vote this November – 41% - than say that that it makes it more likely they will vote Democratic – 36%.

Despite substantial leads in most issue areas, Republicans lead on “national security” and “terrorism,” and the Iraq War though unpopular, is now seen as the single most important issue facing the nation.

A detailed analysis of the 18% of the electorate who are currently undecided about which Party they would vote for if the Presidential election was held today – the next layer of opportunity for Democrats – finds this group very favorable to President Bush and wary of Democrats. While unhappy with the direction of the country, this group will not be an easy one for Democrats to make substantial gains with.

Key Finding 3: The immigration debate has had a tremendous impact with these voters, and will increase their turnout this fall.

This group now believes immigration reform is now the most important problem facing the Hispanic community, with 37% choosing that option, and 15% choosing a related issue, discrimination. Taken together, these two issues are seen as the most important concerns by 52% of those surveyed. The next highest issue is education with 8%. In the 2004 cycle, immigration rarely ranked in the 1st tier of concerns of Hispanics voters.

By a margin of 62% to 28%, Hispanics are in favor of immigration reform.

By more than a 2-1 margin (36%-15%), Hispanics believe the immigration debate makes it more likely that they will vote for Democrats in the fall.

In a remarkable show of civic participation, 25% say they participated in a recent rally or demonstration for a better immigration policy. 54% of all those surveyed say they are more likely to vote this fall because of the debate.

link

While both polls show eroding support for Republicans, Democrats have yet to turn this general dissatisfaction into strong support. Even on the immigration issue, which has fueled much of the Latino discontent with Republicans, Democrats have not been able to gain considerable support, with a significant number of respondents dissatisfied with both parties' positions.

Obviously the Democrats need to start to differentiate themselves more effectively on this issue. The problem is the Democrats have not staked out a strong enough position on the immigration issue. Although the Senate bill is far superior to the terrible House one, the rhetoric out of the Democrats has been somewhat weak. They also capitulated too many times to keep the bill alive in the Senate negotiations. The Hagel/Martinez compromise with its three tiered system, the English language provisions, the smaller wall, all these things sent mixed messages.

The Latino community has been galvanized by the immigration debate, seeing in it the underlying racism that permeates their lives. Yet the Democrats, have been forced to play politics on the issue, walking a line between the two warring wings of the Republican Party. Latinos see the Democrats as unable to take a firm stance on this issue. They watched as the Senate negotiations took place and Democrats constantly caved. The unholy alliance between the Democrats and Bush's corporate wing doesn't help the matter. The Democrats look more like followers than leaders on this, and as such can't be fully trusted to fight for true immigrants rights, or stand up to right-wing racism. I think the fear is that Democrats seem to be a "voting for immigration reform before voting against it" sort of thing.

If they would abandon Bush’s guest worker program in favor of a permanent worker program whereby employers who had jobs they couldn’t fill could sponsor foreign workers to become legal residents or citizens, rather than “temporary guests” to be discarded and replaced periodically, That would put a further wedge between the Republicans, while setting themselves up as a viable alternative for Latinos. If the Democrats were to get out in front of this issue and REALLY hold a firm ground, the Republicans would truely implode on this issue. Instead of constantly compromising to help the Republicans reach agreements, they should stand firm, not give an inch and make Bush and his wing move either further away from the right wing xenophobes, or jump right in bed with them. Right now the Democrats are walking some sort of middle ground that lets the Republicans work both sides of the fence. Bush should be forced to chose, My bet is he would go with the xenophobes if he can get some sort of temporary worker plan that kicks out all the current undocumented and assures that the temps get kicked out when their times up also.

Bush has sent a lot of mixed messages as far as guest workers go. In one breath he says they must leave when their term of service is up, and in the other talks about the Senate plans “path towards citizenship”. This has allowed him and the rest of the corporate wing to play both sides of the fence.

If the Democrats could force a situation where they can come down firmly on the side of immigrants, while the Republicans try to sell the Tancredo plan, all they'd have to do is offer up a reasonable alternative with worker protections, minimum wage increases, quota changes, etc. and they'd have a winning ticket with both immigrants and the electorate in general.

Read More...

Summary only...

It was only a matter of time until the propaganda began: CIS poll runs contrary to all others.

On Thursday the Center for Immigration Studies released a new poll that showed the majority of American people favored the Houses enforcement-only stance on immigration. The press immediately picked up the story and speculated that this “sudden shift” in sentiment was due to a backlash against the recent immigrants rights rallies.

With the recent increased public awareness of the immigration reform issue, polls taken over the past month have consistently shown a large majority of the American people, although favoring tighter control of the borders, prefer a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. One that provides a path towards eventual citizenship for the twelve million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.

tags: immigration, immigration polls, Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, immigration backlash

More than three-quarters of Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants who have spent many years in the United States to apply for citizenship, according to a poll conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp.

In the poll, released Tuesday, 77 percent of those responding favored allowing illegal immigrants who have been in United States for more than five years to stay and apply for citizenship if they have a job, and pay a fine and back taxes. Twenty percent said they opposed such a measure.

A majority opposed a proposal to allow iIlegal immigrants who have been in the United States for two to five years to stay on a temporary basis, without a chance to apply for U.S. citizenship. Fifty-four percent opposed that measure, and 40 percent favored it.

A proposal to deport illegal immigrants in the United States for less than two years was favored by 64 percent and opposed by 31 percent.

CNN 3/27

Most Americans – 74% - think illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be able stay and work in this country if the following criteria are met: they pay a fine, they’ve been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes owed, can speak English, and have no criminal record. Those criteria match those in the Senate compromise bill that was shelved last week.

CBS 3-10

More than one-half of those questioned are open to allowing undocumented workers to obtain some temporary legal status so they can stay in the United States.

At the same time, people doubt that erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border could help to fix such a complex and enduring problem, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Two-thirds do not think it would work.

‘‘You can’t go and round up 11 million people and ship them out of the country,’’ said Robert Kelly. The Chicago lawyer is among the 56 percent of Americans who favor offering some kind of legal status. ‘‘It just isn’t practical,’’ he said.

Two-thirds of those surveyed think illegal immigrants fill jobs that most Americans do not want, the poll found.

AP/Ipsos 4-3

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted April 21-24, in which 61 percent favored letting illegal immigrants stay if they pass a security check, pay taxes and meet other conditions similar to those listed in the pending Senate bill.
NBC/Wall Street Journal 3-24

Yet despite what these polls and scores of other taken recently tell us, yesterday the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that runs contrary to all the others. The Zogby poll, sponsored by CIS seems to paint a polar opposite picture of the American people’s views on the issue. The poll was has been quickly picked up by the press and presented as evidence that there has been a “backlash” to the recent rallies and the American people have had a change of heart. (this despite the fact that the poll was taken prior to May 1st rallies and at the same time as many of the same news agencies own contradictory polls)

Likely voters prefer enforcement, new poll says

Likely American voters, by a wide margin, prefer a plan to get tough on illegal immigrants over one that would put them on a path to citizenship, according to a new poll released Wednesday, which contradicts several other recent surveys.

The poll, taken in the second half of April by Zogby America for the Center for Immigration Studies, found that 69 percent of Americans favor a bill passed by the House of Representatives that would fortify the border, force businesses to verify that workers are legal and allow greater cooperation on immigration from local law enforcement.

By contrast, 43 percent favored a plan being debated in the Senate that would allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who are already here to apply for citizenship. It also would double the number of future green cards -- permits to live in the United States permanently and apply for citizenship -- and it would admit an additional 400,000 foreign workers each year.

San Francisco Chronicle

So how could this one poll, among scores of others, come to such a different conclusion?

Before looking at the wording and methodology used, a quick look at exactly who and what the Center for Immigration Reform is might shed some light on the picture:

CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.

The Center for Immigration Studies was founded in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Another FAIR spin-off is the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which functions as the litigation arm of FAIR, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (1)

Early funding for CIS was channeled through U.S. Inc, a nonprofit established and still directed by John Tanton, who was one of the cofounders of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among the right-wing foundations that fund CIS are Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Jaqueline Hume Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Scaife Family Foundation.

John Tanton is widely recognized as the leading figure in the anti-immigration and "official English" movements in the United States. Initially, Tanton's public policy advocacy work was driven by his commitment to zero population growth and environmental conservation. By the late 1970s, however, this concern about the environment and population growth evolved into a crusade against immigration flows into the United States, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean nations

Along with a few other FAIR board members, in the early 1980s Tanton founded a nationalist organization called WITAN-short for the Old English term "witenagemot," meaning "council of wise men." In 1986, Tanton signed a memo that went to WITAN members that highlighted the supremacist bent of Tanton and FAIR. The memo charged that Latin American immigrants brought a culture of political corruption with them to the United States and that they were unlikely to involve themselves in civil life. He raised the alarm that they could become the majority group in U.S. society. What's more, he asked: "Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva?" Answering his own rhetorical question, Tanton wrote that "perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!" According to Tanton, "In California 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and 'other.' The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly Catholic." Furthermore, Tanton raised concerns about the "educability" of Hispanics. (2)

(1) RightWeb profile of CIS

(2) RightWeb profile of John Tanton

Raising a family and practicing medicine in Petoskey, Mich., Tanton started out as a passionate environmentalist. In the 1960s and early 1970s, he was a leader in the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and other mainstream environmental groups.

But Tanton soon became fixated on population control, seeing environmental degradation as the inevitable result of overpopulation.

When the indigenous birth rate fell below replacement level in the United States, his preoccupation turned to immigration. And this soon led him to race.

Tanton had something akin to a conversion when he came across The Camp of the Saints, a lurid, racist novel written by Frenchman Jean Raspail that depicts an invasion of the white, Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees.
Tanton helped get the novel published in English and soon was promoting what he considered the book's prophetic argument.

"Their [Third World] 'huddled masses' cast longing eyes on the apparent riches of the industrial west," Tanton wrote in 1975. "The developed countries lie directly in the path of a great storm."

And so he began to develop a counter-force. After 1979, when he co-founded FAIR, Tanton launched "a whole array of organizations that serve the overall ideological and political battle plan to halt immigration — even if those groups have somewhat differing politics," explained Rick Swartz, the pro-immigration activist who founded the National Immigration Forum in 1982.

Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report; The Pupeteer

John Tanton's Network

The organized anti-immigration "movement" is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton.

Here is a list of 13 groups in the loose-knit Tanton network, followed by acronyms if the groups use them, founding dates, and Tanton's role in the groups.

Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*).

In this list, "founded" means a group was founded or co-founded by John Tanton. "Funded" means that U.S. Inc., the funding conduit created and still headed by Tanton, has made grants to the group.


*American Immigration Control Foundation
AICF, 1983, funded

*American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
1992, funded

California Coalition for Immigration Reform
CCIR, 1994, funded

Californians for Population Stabilization
1996, funded (founded separately in 1986)

Center for Immigration Studies
CIS, 1985, founded and funded

Federation for American Immigration Reform
FAIR, 1979, founded and funded

NumbersUSA
1996, founded and funded

Population-Environment Balance
1973, joined board in 1980

Pro English
1994, founded and funded

ProjectUSA
1999, funded

*The Social Contract Press
1990, founded and funded

U.S. English
1983, founded and funded

U.S. Inc.
1982, founded and funded

Southern Poverty Law Center

It’s quite evident given these facts the CIS is an agenda driven organization, but that doesn’t necessarily discredit this current poll. But a quick look at some of the wording of the polls questions and anomalies in its findings do bring doubt unto its validity.

“The House of Representatives has passed a bill that tries to make illegal immigrants go home and reduce future illegal immigration mainly by fortifying the border, forcing businesses to verify that workers are legally in the country and allowing greater cooperation from local law enforcement. It does not increase the number of people allowed into the country legally. Do you think this bill is:”
Good or very good idea 69%, bad or very bad 27%, not sure 4%.

“The Senate is considering a bill that would allow 12 million illegal immigrants here to apply for green cards, which allows permanent residence and citizenship, after background check and payment of back taxes. In addition, the bill would double the number of green cards in the future from 1 to 2 million a year. It would also allow an additional 400,000 foreign workers each year, who could also apply for green cards. The bill increases the enforcement of immigration laws. Do you think this bill is:
Good or very good 43%, bad or very bad 50%, not sure 7%.”

When deportation as added to the mix the breakdown went :
House Bill 56% , mass deportations and roundups 12%, Senate Bill 28%

CIS

The questions are masterfully crafted lies of omission. In the first question referring the House Bill there is no mention made of exactly how the bill suggests to "try to make illegal immigrants go home" which of course is to make them felons, arrest them and eventually deport them. But as we see, only twelve percent of the respondents favored deportation so that aspect is omitted in the question.

The rest of question one goes on to list a series of border tightening and employer verification measures, as if they are the hallmark of this bill only. Yet the second question referring to the Senate bill only in passing states "The bill increases the enforcement of immigration laws" when in fact it stipulates many of the the very same measures used to "sell" the House bill in the first question.

Lastly there is the stress in the second question put on the Senates plan to increased number of green cards to be issued as opposed to the Houses bill which "does not increase the number of people allowed into the country legally". But it is for good reason the House bill makes no mention of increased green cards, it's sole purpose was to "secure the border".

The House didn't address the issue of how immigration should be handled in the future. They addressed no real reform issues, no changes to the system, no provisions for future immigration, only stricter and more punitive enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The whole issue of legal immigration was ignored.

The question does not present two alternatives plans for the future but rather one plan versus nothing. Additionally the Senate plan has no firm numbers for future immigration as the number would be determined by a sliding scale of the number of work visas and green cards issued each year measured as a percentage against the number issued the year before. For the poll to state that one million additional green cards would be issued is baseless.

As with all polling, the devil is always in the details. We've seen it a million times before, "likely voters" vs. "registered voters" etc., but in the case of this poll, given it's source, one must concluded that the crafting of the questions was intentional to receive the desired results.

The timing of it's release should not be lost on anyone either, coming just days after the May 1 rallies.

Polls done during the same period were all released prior to May 1, but this one comes just in time for CIS to claim there's a growing backlash against the immigrants rights movement, hoping all along that the American people will begin to change their thinking to more closely resemble that shown in their flawed poll.

It was only a matter of time before John Tanton's propaganda machine got into full swing with it's campaign of misinformation.

Read More...

Summary only...

New Poll Shows Public Supports Democrats on Immigration Reform

This is encouraging news

Public opinion may be shifting as well. House Republican leaders rushed members back to Washington last year for a rare December session, convinced that a measure to get tough on illegal immigration would help the party battle back against the resurgent Democrats.

But in the new Post-ABC News poll, completed Sunday, 50 percent of respondents said they trusted the Democrats to better handle the immigration issue, while 38 percent trusted Republicans. A third of Americans approved of the president's handling of the immigration issue, while 61 percent disapproved. Only his handling of gas prices showed lower approval ratings.

Three-quarters of those responding said the United States is not doing enough to secure its borders, but they appeared to have rejected the argument that immigrants are an economic threat. About 68 percent said illegal immigrants are filling jobs Americans do not want, compared with 29 percent who believe they are taking jobs from Americans.

linkage

(more below the fold)

tags: immigration, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, Kennedy McCain bill, Kennedy, S. 2454



It's no wonder that the Democrats are receiving the upper-hand. Would you rather support something negative and divisive like this:

"Today's rallies show how entrenched the illegal alien lobby has become over the last several years," he [Tom Tancredo] said. "The iron triangle of illegal employers, foreign governments and groups like La Raza puts tremendous pressure on our elected officials to violate the desires of law-abiding Americans and to grant amnesty."

or a message of hope and prosperity like this?

Buenos tardes! Gracias por darme la oportunidad de estar en este evento. Y gracias por demandar justicia para todos los inmigrantes.

I look across this historic gathering and I see the future of America. As President Kennedy proclaimed a half century ago, we are a Nation of Immigrants. And today, we stand together as brothers and sisters to shape America's destiny -- old Americans, new Americans, future Americans -- all joined together for the common good.

Let me ask you some questions. Are you ready? (Estas listo?)

Do you have a job? (Tienes trabajo?)

Do you love your family? (Amas a su familia?)

Do you love your community? (Amas a su comunidad?)

Do you love America? (Amas a America?)

You are what this debate is about. It is about good people who come to America to work, to raise their families, to contribute to their communities, and to reach for the American dream.

This debate goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. It will determine who can earn the privilege of citizenship.

It will determine our strength in separating those who would harm us from those who contribute to our values.

It will determine our future progress as a nation and our future economic growth.

Some in Congress want to turn America away from its true spirit. They believe immigrants are criminals. That's false.

They believe any of us who help immigrants -- even our priests -- are criminals, too. That's false.

They say you should report to deport. I say report to become American citizens.

More than four decades ago, near this place, Martin Luther King called on the nation to let freedom ring. Freedom did ring -- and freedom can ring again.

It is time for Americans to lift their voices now -- in pride for our immigrant past and in pride for our immigrant future.

We stand for the future. (Nosotros apoyamos el futuro.)

We stand for our families. (Nosotros apoyamos nuestras familias.)

We stand for our faith. (Nosotros apoyamos nuestra fe.)

I stand with you. And you and you and you and you.

Are you with me? (Estan conmigo?)

John McCain and I have a plan. It is a strong plan. It is a fair plan. It is a plan for America's future.

And today we are making that future happen.

Will you support us? (Me apoyan?)

Will you support us? (Me apoyan?)

Will you support us? (Me apoyan?)

Well, I'm here today to say that we will support you, too. (Nosotros vamos a apoyar a ustedes tambien.)

We will never give up. We will never give in.

Hasta la Victoria!

Si se puede!

It looks like you were successful in reading the tea leaves, Duke.

Read More...

Summary only...

…and many miles to go before I sleep

In a demonstration of just how effective the right-wing propaganda machine has been on the immigration issue, a new Quinnipiac University poll released Friday found that 88 percent of poll respondents believe that illegal immigration is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. Even more telling was the fact that 83% of immigrants themselves, or their children and grandchildren, believed the same.

The poll, conducted Feb. 21 to 28, surveyed 1,892 registered voters nationwide. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points..

(more below the fold)
Tag: immigration

The poll found that 39 percent of voters want to reduce the current level of legal immigration, 24 percent want to increase it, and 33 percent want to maintain it. The poll also found that:

By 72 percent to 25 percent, U.S. voters oppose giving undocumented immigrants driver's licenses

By 62 percent to 32 percent, voters oppose making it easier for undocumented immigrants to become citizens.

By 84 percent to 14 percent, they favor requiring proof of legal residency to obtain government benefits.

Some 50 percent approve of the automatic U.S. citizenship granted to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States, with 42 percent in favor of eliminating it.

Newsday

Frankly, as disappointing as these numbers are, it is not surprising given the constant barrage of misinformation, propaganda and outright lies that have come out of the media, and the right wing noise machine as of late. The perpetuation of false and inflammatory stereotypes has become common practice, the use of inaccurate or misleading statistics commonplace, and fanning the fires of fear and racial bigotry a daily occurrence in the media.

These numbers only reinforce what those of us on the progressive side of this issue have known all along. The scapegoating of the “others” in society, those without voice or power, those who are different by race or origin, has been a common thread running throughout this nation’s history. It is only when the light of truth is shown upon them, that society at large sees that the “others” are in fact no different from them, and we are a nation of “others”.

In the end, it will be those of us, each with a single matchlight, who will hopefully provide that light of truth.

Until then:

The forest is mysterious dark and deep
I have many promises to keep
And many miles to go before I sleep
And many miles to go before I sleep
(R. Frost)

Read More...

Summary only...