Who’s the outlier?

27 Jun

Posted by Harold C. Hutchison as Barack Obama, Conservatism, Republicans, polls

AJ-Strata has dug up some interesting data that seems to vindicate Ed Goeas.

Three more polls showing that the conservative opposition is a minority.¬† The most interesting poll is CNN’s.¬† From CNN’s article:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday showed 47 percent of Americans opposed the bill, while 30 percent supported it and 19 percent said they didn’t know enough about it to make a judgment. The poll’s sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

However, the poll found a significant division among opponents of the immigration plan. About 28 percent said they were opposed because it did too much to help illegal immigrants, but 15 percent said they were opposed because it did too little.

So while much of the opposition to the bill has come from those who believe it is too soft on illegal immigration, the poll found that 45 percent of Americans either support the bill or want it to be more immigrant-friendly, compared to 28 percent who feel it’s already too immigrant-friendly.

Folks, this kinda makes Rasmussen look like the outlier, and the other polls seem to be more accurate.¬† The other two polls show support for a path to citizenship of one sort or another.

I’m not normally a betting man, but I’m about ready to wager that Rasmussen’s been the outlier on immigration polling.

No Response

retire05

June 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
1

What AJ failed to point out is that when Hispanics were polled as to whether or not illegals should be allowed to remain if there is no fine or back tax provision. 44% said yes but an equal number 44% said no.

This is not unimportant. When 44% of the Hispanics polled do not want to allow illegals to stay if there is no fine and/or back tax provision is tremendous.
bricko

June 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
2

I dont think many of the lay public have been following the details of each paragraph and do not know the little tidbits about it. Such as the Social Security Totalization, tax payers paying for legal services corp. for all illegals, employers having to HIRE FIRST before checking legal status, then firing , so the illegals will then be able to sue and drag out for years in appeals to the notorious friendly EOIR courts manned by ex-pro immigration attorneys.

Just a few thing not told on CNN or Fox or MSNBC or anywhere unless you read it.
Macranger

June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
3

The poll nonetheless still shows an opposition. Addtionally retired point at the hispanic response is key as we in SF have seen the same response among the immigrant population here, both in media and the polls.

Frankly the OPD interpretation is to put it bluntly - wanting and out of wack with not only Rassmussens but the majority of other polls taken so far.

***Needed to update here to bolster the above point reference Hispanics.¬† Bear in mind that At least six major Hispanic advocacy groups oppose the bill, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities, and the Hispanic Federation.
AJStrata

June 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
4

R05,

I failed to mention an irrelevant issue? I dare I stay focused!!!

LOL!
CatoRenasci

June 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
5

I think the poll also failed to come to grips with the ‘lack of border enforcement’ provisions - which is my main beef. Enforce the borders first, and then we can talk about what to do with the current illegals. Though my inclinations are now for making it harder to stay, with appropriate real enforcement, and complete exclusion of criminals, I might well be amenable to an easier deal for those whose only offenses are the initial illegal entry and working without legal papers. But, without enforcement, I’m not even willing to consider amnesty for anybody.
pagar

June 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
6

This bill is crime and every single politician promoting it should be charged with fraud against America. Not a single person in the senate knows what’s in it and yet we’re being told that there are people supporting it. How does one support something that they have no idea what it says.
Harold C. Hutchison

June 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
7

CatoRenasci,

What would you consider to be sufficient enforcement? Give me some metrics that we can use. More border agents? More funding? More miles of fence?

What?

And how long do we try until you will give us your permission to talk about what we do with those that are here?
pagar

June 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
8

I’m not who you asked but to me the answer is simple. When no more illegals are able to to cross the border, the border is secure. That’s what every other country considers a secure border.

More border agents? The only ones that seem to care are apparently in jail. Who let 12, or 20 or whatever millions into America?

Surely a country that was once considered great, can figure out how to secure borders.
CatoRenasci

June 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
9

Metrics, Harold? It’s not about miles of fence or number of agents, it’s about how many illegals get through. I think a sound metric would be two consecutive years with less than 50,000 illegal aliens getting in from the southern border. Do that, and I know you’re serious about border enforcement. It will never be perfect, but it can be very good.

Combine that with a significant workplace enforcement program - say in each year 15% of businesses in the border states and 10% elsewhere are visited on a random basis to check legality of all workers.

I think that the combination alone would significantly reduce the problem - you would certainly not have the ’round trippers’ who go back to Mexico and then slip in illegally again, and you would reduce the employer’s incentive to hire illegals. Not so overwhelmingly as to disrupt the economy (except perhaps in California, which is addicted), but by attrition.
retire05

June 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
10

Harold, what you fail to accept is that we do nothing to stop the flow of illegals into our nation. And then ask “what would you do”?
Here’s my answers:
#1 Add to the National Guard on the border. When they are being shot at, allow them to shot back, no matter what side of the river the damn shooter is on.
#2 Allow the Border Patrol to do their jobs. Eliminate the “no persuit” policy.
#3 Give employers a secure intergrated system to verify SS#s. Right now with the Basic Pilot Plan, an employer cannot verify a SS# until AFTER they hire a person.
#4 Prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals to the full extent of the law. No exceptions.
#5 Eliminate all social welfare services for anyone that cannot prove their legality.
#6 End federal funds for any sanctuary city.
#7 Increase the penalty for being here illegally. First offence, three months on a prison farm that donate the food to American poor and food banks. Second offense, one year in the big house.
#8 Enact the Real I.D. act where all citizens are required to provide proof of citizenship to get a voter registration card. Abolish the MotorVoter Act.
Sue

June 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
11

Stopping the flow of illegals is easy. No one wants to do it. As long as the jobs are available, they’ll get here, by hook or crook. Once it becomes less economical to employee them than it is right now, the jobs will dry up and they will go home willingly. When your only downside to employing an illegal is $250, and you are able to use the fine as a business expense, it is a win/win.
For Enforcement

June 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
12

CatoRenasci and Pagar are correct, knowing when the border is secure is a simple thing. No one crossing illegally.
70% of polls are showing that basically 70% of Americans are not in support of the illegal alien bill. The Congress, in a Republic are supposed to represent their constituents interests. The present ‘charade’ going on in the Senate is a travesty.