"the public has a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes a pragmatic immigration solution

[pampango]

and what constitutes political pandering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry/on-red-hot-immigration-is_b_712350.html

A careful reading of opinion surveys over several years shows that the public has a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes a pragmatic immigration solution, and what constitutes political pandering.

In sum, here is where they stand: They are fed-up and frustrated, but only some are angry at immigrants; most are frustrated with the federal government’s failure to advance a solution. The broken immigration system has become for them a potent symbol of how Washington has failed to step up and solve tough problems. They want their leaders to take bold action that ends illegal immigration. And the action they strongly prefer is a national and comprehensive approach that couples enforcement measures at the border and the workplace with a practical and humane path to legal status for those here without papers.

Check these recent results from a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll of that city and its suburbs:

Nearly all of those who responded, 87 percent, believed that some sort of legal status should be offered to the nearly 11 million people in the country illegally, provided that the immigrants aren't dangerous felons, that they learn English and that they pay fines and back taxes.

Opinions about immigration in the suburbs are slightly different than in Chicago, whose immigrants from around the world have helped define the city. In some collar-county communities that have only recently seen new immigration, there is more support for police enforcement and a more negative view of illegal immigrants. On the question of offering legal status, 84 percent of those in the collar counties said they would support such a program, compared with 90 percent in the city.

Got that? In this poll, 84% support for offering legal status represents the “more negative view.” Let’s be realistic: rare is the issue that enjoys 84% support.

But why do polls show public support for Arizona’s “show me your papers” law? Because voters are frustrated, they want action, and sympathize with those who take matters into their own hands given Washington’s failure to act. But if you look closely, event these polls show strong support for a “both/and” approach, one that combines enforcement with a path to legal status for those here illegally.

In fact, recent polling conducted by the Democratic firm of Lake Research Partners and the Republican firm of Public Opinion Strategies for America’s Voice found that while a majority of poll respondents supported the Arizona ‘papers please’ immigration law, a whopping 84% of those who voiced support for the Arizona law also supported comprehensive immigration reform.
------------------------------------------------
Voters may be able to differentiate between practical solutions and political pandering, but that doesn't seem to stop the repubs from pursuing the latter. ;)

[Xipe Totec]

1. Yesterday, 8 years after applying, my son got his permanent residence

18 years living in the US; more than half his life time, and he finally gets his permanent residence.

Now five more years waiting before he can apply for citizenship.

If we want people to immigrate to the US legally, there has GOT to be a better way to do it.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Hat's off to your son for taking the legal route

How does he feel about line jumpers?

[Xipe Totec]

13. What line jumpers?

Do you mean people born here who don't have to wait at all?

[customerserviceguy]

14. No, I mean people who sneak in illegally

and then want to be forgiven for that, and for the identity theft they commit while working here illegally. They expect to have a special place at the front of the line, and I call that amnesty.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Sorry, but doing a survey only in a major city and its immediate suburbs

does not qualify a pundit to talk about what "the public" feels. Illegal immigrants are a boon to the big cities, where they do the dirty jobs, and the 'burbs, where they mow the lawns. The real burden of illegal immigration is felt in the small towns, near the agricultural regions, where the hospital, educational, and justice systems are bursting from having to deal with the problems.

[Xipe Totec]

3. That's bullshit and you ought to know better

I know because my son is a nurse.

He deals with drug addicts day in, day out.

Guess what. They're not immigrants.

Illegal immigrants avoid hospitals for fear of being deported.

Justice system bursting from having to deal with illegal immigrants? Give me a break. :eyes:

[dkf]

4. Illegal immigrants are 7% of the general population but 20% of the prison population

[customerserviceguy]

6. I'll admit, the drug problem in this country

causes a massive strain on the medical and justice systems, too. The problem of backwoods meth labs does impact rural communities. But the illegal immigrant population that shows up in the emergency room with a fake ID and no intention of paying a hospital bill also is a burden to bear for those places.

[elehhhhna]

8. Yep, in this country, healthcare is a privilege to be earned.

very christian of us.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I've always supported single payer

My biggest beef with the HCR mess as passed is that it will delay our reaching this solution by the years it will take to 'see how the 2010 reforms work before we do anything else'. That is now the argument that supposed progressive Democratic congresscritters will put in the way of true reform.

[elehhhhna]

11. we agree on that point.

[pampango]

5. It's not just a survey of one city and its suburbs as the story at the link indicates.

* Washington Post/ABC, June 2010: 58% support the Arizona law; 57% support “a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.”

* NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo, May 2010: 61% of all voters support the Arizona law (70% of whites, 31% of Latinos); 65% of voters favor “allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English, and go back to the line for the opportunity to become American citizens.”

* AP-GfK-Univision, May 7-12, 2010: 41% of all voters, and 15% of Hispanic voters, favor the Arizona law; 59% of all voters, and 86% of Hispanic voters, favor “a legal way for illegal immigrants already in the United States to become U.S. citizens.”

* CBS/New York Times, April 28-May 2, 2010: 51% of voters feel the Arizona law is “just right” (9% say it doesn’t go far enough); 64% of voters agree that “illegal immigrants who are currently working in the U.S… should be allowed to stay in their jobs and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship, or they should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as guest workers.”

There were several other national polls referenced in the story, all showing the same support for comprehensive reform. Have you found any polls (even from conservative sources) that indicate that the public does not support a path to citizenship as a part of immigration reform?

[customerserviceguy]

7. It's all in how you word the question

If you use the sweet-sounding 'path to citizenship' meme in the question, you tend to get positive responses from it. If you use the word amnesty, or the phrase 'jumping in line ahead of those trying to immigrate legally', you get a more negative response.

[pampango]

12. Interesting speculation, but there's no proof that is true.

It would be interesting to see polls that use those repub buzz words (I'm sure they would include "illegals" and "anchor babies" in their polls, too) and see how that affected the results. I'm sure the repubs are confident that those terms would have an effect. It's the main reason that they use them constantly when discussing immigration reform. They are quite good at framing the debate in ways that benefit their goals.

Perhaps FAIR and CIS have such polls.

FAIR advocates "7 Principles of True Comprehensive Immigration Reform":

1. Reduce the flow of immigrants
2. No legalization
3. No Guest-Worker Program
4. Protect Wages and Standards of Living
5. More Enforcement
6. No Asylum
7. Immigration Time Out (Very strict immigration only for "a narrowly focused refugee resettlement program" and limit family reunification each year)

The president of FAIR since 1988 is Dan Stein. The organization claims to have more than 250,000 members and supporters. FAIR describes itself as non-partisan. It is described as conservative in dozens of press reports and books, and, according to Andrew Wroe, a lecturer in American Politics and author of The Republican Party and Immigration Politics, it is viewed by many as an extremist group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-profit research organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States. Founded in 1985, its executive director is Mark Krikorian. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities. The organization describes itself as non-partisan. Media sources describe it as a "non-partisan" or a "conservative" organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

[customerserviceguy]

15. Surveys and polls aside

We're not going to get any sort of immigration bill for at least a couple of years. What we will get is the spread of Arizona-like laws to keep illegal immigrants from heading for other states that don't want the financial burdens.

[entanglement]

16. Fear, racism and xenophobia are the primary tools in the arsenal of the Right.

The "liberal" (gag) media doesn't help matters either.