While a lot of polling shows a quite tolerant attitude towards undocumented workers, Gallup shows how meaningless those results can be.
Most Americans have heard about Arizona’s tough new immigration law, and they generally support it. The law was passed partly in response to a lack of federal action on the issue. Since the Arizona bill became law, congressional Democrats have considered taking up the issue in the coming weeks, though this initial read on public opinion toward the Arizona law suggests Americans may not necessarily back an attempt to supersede or otherwise undermine it.
Meanwhile, the Democrats plan on bringing up an immigration bill even if they have no Republican support for it. If it passes, great, but in the much more likely scenario where it doesn’t pass, we have to ask ourselves…does trying and failing to pass a good immigration bill with 59 members of the caucus make it more or less likely that we’ll pass a good immigration bill next year when we have a smaller majority?
Yes, forcing the Republicans to filibuster an immigration bill will galvanize the Latino vote, perhaps mitigating our losses in the fall a bit, but from a policy point of view, isn’t it a dubious strategy, at best?
If this is what they want to do, I’ll support it and make arguments for why we need immigration reform. But, unless they can secure the Republican votes to pass something, I think it’s likely to result in the following:
It will stir up the worst instincts of the Republican Party, who will stand united in opposition to the bill, calling it amnesty, and racially polarizing the country even further than it is right now. But, despite this sickening display, the Republicans will still make major gains in the midterms (much of their gains are already cooked in the dough), giving the impression that the effort to pass immigration reform backfired (even if it actually helped). Then, next year, the Republicans will be even less inclined to tackle the issue, and Democrats will not even think of doing something without Republican support. The press, having seen the issue burn Bush and Obama in turn, will treat the issue like HillaryCare, and the only way to pass something in the next decade and a half will be to effectively let Tom Tancredo write the bill.
I’m sorry to be a pessimist on this issue, but I am. Most Americans like the Arizona law. It’s sad and depressing. But it does tell us something about the prospects of passing acceptable immigration reform between now and November. Doesn’t it?
This poll shows no such thing. Takeaway sentence is “Note that the poll did not attempt to measure actual knowledge about the law or describe the various provisions of the law to respondents.” IOW, all the people who want to pretend or to believe they know something are included without checks or information.
As usual, everything will depend on whether the Dem/liberal side manages to communicate, and whether the media allow them to speak. The disconnect between general attitudes and the AZ law results from not knowing more than what the headlines say. Once the Idiot State realizes that its only industry is about to go down the toilet let’s see how opinions go. In any case the headline above is preposterous.
Most Americans do not understand what the Arizona law actually says.
Wait until someone sues a county sheriff for not arresting an non-Hispanic illegal alien. Or calls in about suspicious people at a workplace and the Anglo owner cannot produce his own documents. It’s a court case just waiting to happen.
About immigration law in general, most Americans think (1) the laws should be enforced, (2) employers should not be recruiting in Mexico, (3) employers have an incentive to hire illegals because they can be blackmailed into working off-book for less than minimum wage (4) the criminality near the borders is getting beyond the capability of local and state law enforcement to handle.
Where the controversy arises is in what to do about the large number of undocumented workers already in the US. Some unfortunately see allowing them American citizenship as rewarding criminality.
Maybe, but I think more than a majority don’t see it this way. Well, they claim that they do, but there’s an underlying rationale. Take abortion. Most reasonable people think that women in the cases of rape and incest should have the right to get an abortion if they so choose. However, why is that? Why the exception if they’re so concerned with life? It boils down to sexism. Women who get abortions on their own time are seen as sluts who just didn’t close their legs and should be therefore punished.
To same with undocumented workers, sure they don’t want to reward criminality, but 98% of the time there’s underlying racism, malicious and not. It can be seen in their language. Hell, I just had an argument on another forum with some guy who claimed not to be racist even though he supported the law. His language told the tale. Eventually after 5 back and forths it came boiling to the surface:
I don’t give a damn what “some” or even “most” people may have told Gallup. I’m ashamed of you for accepting this slim evidence in support of a statement like: Most Americans like the Arizona law. Instead of being sad and depressed, you should be outraged and using your blog to point out the unfairness and absurdity of it!
First of all, I respect Gallup Polls. Second, within the poll, the more people say they know, the more they like it. Third, Independents like it. Now, I’d like to see the exact opposite of those results because then I could hope that more awareness would lead to less support. There is other polling data out there that supports the idea that people will endorse a bill that provides a path to citizenship. But the politics of it on the Hill is such that we may have to wait for demographic reality to force Republicans into allowing a vote. We can take this bill up, but I don’t think we can pass it.
So, can we have a debate about whether it’s going to be a net positive to bring this up either from a) the goal of getting a just immigration policy done sometime soon, or b) from an electoral point of view?
If I am wrong, and this passes this year, I’ll be happy and gladly eat crow.
A poster named Arlee gave this insight on another board that I will share here: “It is not the fact that their opinion differs from mine, it is the fact that those who oppose the Arizona law are supporting the invasion of a foreign population in defiance of national soveriegnty. That is, by definition, treason.”
Finally, every Illegal Alien sympathizer needs to see this: youtube.com/watch?v=S_ylVIcoWRo
Almost nobody knows what’s in any proposed piece of legislation because the media would rather take a pay cut than discuss policy. They will talk all day about whether or not proposed policy is popular, will pass, who’s in favor, who’s against. But the content of the policy? Not gonna happen until it’s passed. Think health care reform.
As to the likelihood of passing immigration reform: consider that this is another one of the many issues about which the corporate daddies who own the GOP care not at all beyond the power of the issue to stir up their voters. Abortion? Their daughters will get on a plane and get an abortion if they need one. Gays? Like Ronald Reagan, they probably have a bunch of gay friends. Guns? They don’t hunt, unless you call shooting at released pheasants or clay pigeons hunting.
In fact, this is an issue where the less brain-damaged Republicans can look liberal. After all, without illegals, who is going to pick the lemons, slaughter and pack the pork, and keep their big yards looking trim for a reasonable, non-union price?
that’s not even enough to sustain a filibuster…
I don’t know where you got 39% from.
It’s from the Gallup poll. Nationwide, a plurality of 39% support it, 30% opposite it, and 31% had no opinion or had not heard of it.
Okay.
But the 39% number is also the opposition number:
And, more ominously…
…people who profess to know a good amount the bill are more likely to approve of it.
That’s not what we want to see.
Sure, it’s not a cheery result. But having written about opinion polling on immigration for many years, I’m not putting much stock in what people profess to know days after the bill was signed.
You and I both know there hasn’t been a serious proposal to grant amnesty to unauthorized immigrants in over 20 years, but many Americans think the CIR proposals in 2005 and 2006 contained just that.
It’ll be interesting to watch the public opinion continue to form — if the law withstands legal challenges — once we start reading horror stories about people being picked up for not having their papers, and communities start getting sued by wingnuts who don’t think their sheriff’s deputies are enforcing the law with sufficient zeal.
Ruy Teixeira summarized a whole range of public opinion data like this: “the public favors a tough, but not punitive, approach to the problem of containing illegal immigration.” I think he’s right, and opinions will change as people become aware of how stupidly punitive this monstrosity really is.
Also, did they “heard or read a great deal about” the AZ law on Fox?
I ask because among those who said they’ve heard about the law, 34% of Dems and 75% of Repubs like it.
For the long-term impact of this law, I agree with you completely. Before long, the Arizona law will start pissing people off from all ideological camps. It’s a disaster. But what interests me here is what the prospect is for getting a couple of Republican senators (hell, let’s make it ten) to cross the aisle and get us the 60 votes we need to proceed to a vote. Because I don’t see it happening, at all.
And, then, assuming I am right about that, is it really a good idea to make the effort? It would probably help on most state-wide races, hurt in most competitive house races…but it’s not the politics alone that concerns me. Having tried and failed after Bush tried and failed, and then to take a beating at the polls just like Bush took a beating at the polls (and, no, for media narrative purposes, cause and effect do not have to be connected), where will that leave us going forward?
I can see short-term gains for Dems by losing the fight. With this crazy shit going down in AZ, it sets up a narrative that they’re responsible adults trying to tackle a national problem on a national level and in an intelligent way while the GOP is blocking that in DC and pandering to its crazies in the states.
That’s got to get some of the Democratic base energized, at least enough to blunt the force of the trauma coming in November.
But I’m not going to look only at the short term, and I think moving the CIR bill — the bill that would have to be moved in this Senate — is a terrible idea.
I have somewhat different reasons. I edit immigration coverage at AlterNet, and I can tell you that the situation is toxic among the various wings of the immigrant rights community. It’s so much worse than health-care.
I can see the writing on the wall from a mile away: the Dems are going to start with a very security-centric bill in the hope of winning over David Broder, the outsiders in the immigrant rights community are going to howl about it, and Fox News is going to inflame some serious terrorism against brown people.
And, you’re right: it won’t pass.
On the other hand, this is a very tangible threat to people in immigrant communities, and they’ll see CIR as a way of defending themselves. So regardless of the political calculus, some people will push it passionately.
Ultimately, the many legal challenges that are already in the works are our best bet for dealing with this abomination.
(BTW, I never congratulated you on the first-born son. Cigar!)
thanks, Josh.
I basically agree with your take. However, I think the short-term gain (if any) will be quite mixed. It should help Democratic senators (for example, Harry Reid and the eventual Colorado nominee) in some states, but it will hurt a lot of marginal Democratic congresspeople. It makes it slightly more likely that we lose the House, while making it slightly less likely that we’ll suffer a total wipeout in the Senate. Depending on details, the short-term gain could iron out as a net loss, if we’re talking Speaker Boner.
But, again, even if the politics on this were rock solid, I still see it as substantive mistake to intentionally lose a battle over immigration reform. If we want to do something like that, failing at Financial Reform is more likely to reap across the board, unambiguous political benefit, and without the downside of making it impossible to pass something next year.
I don’t think the strategy is to lose a battle over immigration reform but to have the timing of the bill bracket election day.
It will hurt marginal Democrats only if they don’t forcefully explain to their constituents what is going on and forcefully rebut the Republican talking points. In most cases the chronic failure to do this sort of campaigning is why they are marginal.
Having an honest debate about immigration reform advantages Democrats, even marginal ones. The Democratic position does strengthen border protection. What it does not do is pretend that harassing Hispanics solves the problem.
I’d like to have your faith that the American electorate is an impartial and fair judge of a debating society. But I don’t think they are. When we approach a contentious issue with near-unanimity, like with the need to extend health care access to millions of Americans, we stand a fighting chance. When we’re divided, we stand very little chance. I challenge you to find a credible source from within the Democratic power structure who sincerely thinks we can pass immigration reform this year.
Other than Bob Menendez, I don’t even see anyone trying to make that argument with a straight face. And I take them seriously when they say this isn’t going to happen. Obama said as much. Pelosi said as much.
And I agree with yours. It’s a losing issue.
But again, it’s important to appreciate the divide among progressive advocates. I think the institutional immigrant advocacy orgs are by and large against moving CIR without a decent shot of passing it. I’ve even heard the suggestion that the Dems ditch CIR this year but try to pass a stand-alone Dream Act (which makes little sense as it too would fail).
At the same time, you have immigrant communities that feel under siege. They feel that they’re fighting for their lives, and aren’t willing to wait. There’s a ton of pressure coming from the grassroots on this. And many among them simply aren’t making detached judgments about the political calculus.
It can be hard for people like us — I’m a 5th generation citizen — to fully appreciate how pressing the issue is for 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, as many as 40 percent of whom live in “mixed status” households.
I’m guessing you’ll have your hands too full to come to NN this year?
If you do make it, I’m moderating the immigration panel and you should try to catch it.
well, then, Shame on America, too. The country supported Junior Caligula at 51% in 2004, doesn’t make him less of a disgrace.
The poll’s wording is suspect, on top of it all. Even the cerebral Chuck Todd agrees with that.
Uh, pretty much only white folks like it.
And it’s perfectly unsurprising that for white folks, race > party.
And the fact that self-proclaimed “progressives” don’t want to do anything, because it’ll expose white Americans’ fundamental bigotry is nothing more than being the getaway car driver for the bigots. Fuck you.
That’s a pretty bad misreading of my position.
While I certainly don’t relish the spectacle of angry white bigots dominating every news cycle for a month or more, my concern is that the (any) bill cannot pass in this political climate and that it is therefore being done for wholly political purposes. And I doubt the political benefit at the same time that I think a failed effort will make it harder to pass something in the future.
You can come to a different conclusion on both issues. I understand if you think our best chance is now because we have a lot of members in our caucus. But telling me to fuck off because of political assessment is pretty misguided, especially if you think it’s motivated by a fear of seeing white people misbehave.
Three words:
Hispanic voter turnout.
It’s going to be big in some surprising places: North Carolina and Iowa, for example.
It might even move some Cuban Americans in Florida (thus Connie Mack’s statement criticizing the law).
This issue has only begun to be debated. It will be interesting to watch the trend line on the polls.
Yes, very interesting.
I think the Republicans are going to deal on immigration reform. It is in their best interest because the Arizona law points to the fact that the feds haven’t done anything about it. But you never know what the idiot Repubs will do.