More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law: Why? What do they want?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

According to the survey, nearly eight out of ten Americans have heard about the law. Of those, 51 percent support the measure and 39 percent oppose the law. (Source)

 

Could that means that about 40% of the population supports a law that forces you to carry proof of citizenship on your person or risk being detained until you can prove that you are a citizen?  I wonder, how many people really understand what this law means? Could they have taken the question to mean "Do you support immigration laws?" (most people do) rather than support this particular law?

But no one can deny that some people who feel that illegal immigration is an urgent issue that is hurting the country. This law came in to being since some people felt the need to "do something" -- so, I want to ask: what is the problem they are trying to solve?

We could say they are bigoted and believe that American culture, the English language and the wealth of our nation could be diluted or destroyed by people who do not have the same values, language or wealth. It could be racist fears of dwindling numbers of white people, supported by "rational" theories about the relative quality of cultures. (Why is it that all of the nations where people have brown skin are so poor? Could there be something wrong with those people?) Some of the people who support the law believes this or variations of it.

Or maybe for some people it is more about money. These are the people who will tirelessly argue out that illegal immigrates "use resources." The idea behind this theory is that Americans pay taxes but those taxes are diverted to serve people who are not from this country and don't pay taxes. (This ignores the fact that many illegal immigrants pay taxes, but more than that, it ignores what illegal immigrates contribute to this country-- both economically and culturally. Our nation would be diminished if all illegal immigrants vanished.)

But maybe, for others still, it is just an abstract matter of "the law" --laws should not be broken because they are laws--it makes a mockery of the system when laws are not enforced. This compliant is the most legitimate in my view. But, it is also the least urgent. We must "do something" to realign the laws with reality or reality with the laws... or both.

So, if we should do something what would make sense? Here is my plan:

1.) The real issue is illegal workers. No one can stay in the US without some decent source of income. Hence, the policy must focus on employment.
2.) For all people in the US at this time a road to citizenship would be available that would be just as long as the road for other immigrants who have followed the proper process. Immigration for those currently caught in the system trying to do the right thing would be expedited. For people and employers found breaking the law starting 5 years after this mass "grating of a road to citizenship" penalties would be much more harsh.
3.) At the same time, we should make entering the US easier for immigrants from all nations.  Especially Haiti. (I know that's specific, but it really burns me.)

The thing is, I don't really see what else we can do. The social trauma that would result from trying to remove (shudder) all of the illegal immigrant in the US now is enormous. In my neighborhood it would lead to all kinds of separations, stress, depopulation, essentially a return to the 1970s -- one of the major factors in NYC revival was increased immigration both legal and illegal. The laws need to catch up with reality.

But seriously, what else could we do besides this? I'm not talking about a law like the Arizona law which will simply harass people regardless of they are American citizens or not. I'm talking about what do you want to do to solve the problem. Border fences and brandishing guns, forming militias, institutionalizing low-grade harassment only keeps people in the shadows. It also keeps their wages low, and this makes me very cyclical about the motives of some of the people who claim to want to "solve" the immigration "problem."

Yes. It is another post. It's that important.

Comments

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Yeah, not feeling the love so much.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Like someone said, heaven forbid those illegals take the jobs no one wants to do.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Illegal immigration should make Americans proud...

Illegal immigration? No, I don't think so. I have no problem with people coming to the United States from other countries as long as they follow our rules, and that includes proper entry into the country and proper documentation. It's like giving a pass to someone who robs a bank at gunpoint because you don't like the way the bank does business. That's stupid.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Kind of like shoplifting is a sign that people want to buy your things. :P

This, again, should not be construed as supporting the AZ law

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Could that means that about 40% of the population supports a law that forces you to carry proof of citizenship on your person or risk being detained until you can prove that you are a citizen?

Given that "proof of citizenship" in Arizona is a driver's license, and given that nearly everyone carries some form of government ID on them at all times, it could mean that most of the country doesn't see the requirement as anything close to a burden.

1.) The real issue is illegal workers. No one can stay in the US without some decent source of income. Hence, the policy must focus on employment.

No, the real issue isn't. The issue is not only employment, but crime, resources, and fraudulent behavior. The insurance scams are one thing, but when we're becoming more and more like a welfare state, it means that our tax dollars are paying in to groups of people who do not do a lot of contributing as a result.

3.) At the same time, we should make entering the US easier for immigrants from all nations. Especially Haiti. (I know that's specific, but it really burns me.)

I don't disagree, but if you're making it "easier," does that mean you're bumping people out of line who are currently doing it the right way?

The thing is, I don't really see what else we can do. The social trauma that would result from trying to remove (shudder) all of the illegal immigrant in the US now is enormous.

We'll actually get to see what that "social trauma" will be in Arizona, since many illegals appear to be looking to leave (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/29/national/main6442729.shtml). My guess? The trauma will not be as big as you're considering it.

In my neighborhood it would lead to all kinds of separations, stress, depopulation, essentially a return to the 1970s -- one of the major factors in NYC revival was increased immigration both legal and illegal. The laws need to catch up with reality.

Laws never catch up with reality. They react to situations on the ground with no concern for logic or reason.

I'm not talking about a law like the Arizona law which will simply harass people regardless of they are American citizens or not.

Untrue even before the fixes passed today.

I'm talking about what do you want to do to solve the problem.

Be serious about deportation? Have the federal government actually do its job regarding immigration law enforcement.

I'm an open borders proponent, but even I can see that the federal government isn't getting this right.

Border fences and brandishing guns, forming militias, institutionalizing low-grade harassment only keeps people in the shadows. It also keeps their wages low, and this makes me very cyclical about the motives of some of the people who claim to want to "solve" the immigration "problem."

At least they have an idea. At least they're acting.

Re: This, again, should not be construed as supporting the AZ law

[tridus.livejournal.com]

I'm an open borders proponent, but even I can see that the federal government isn't getting this right.

Agree totally.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

what is the problem they are trying to solve?

How about further preventing legal U.S. citizens from being murdered on their own property by illegal residents...ya think?

Funny how no one seems to be mentioning that or even getting disgusted over that. Does the life of a foreign criminal have more value than the life of an actual, American citizen?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

good luck building walls on private property that extends on both sides of the border. Good luck building wall through the middle of lake Erie. Good luck stopping the Americans fleeing to greener pastures.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

and then start the Great Wall Project on BOTH borders. Jobs and economy boosting for everyone along with permanent American security to boot.

You'll need those wall building jobs to employ all the people thrown out of work by choking off trade with Canada, and you won't get a whole lot of security out of it. The terrorists can fly in legally from Saudi Arabia pretty easily.

(Besides, the US is so far in debt that there is no way the government could afford to build a wall several thousand miles long.)

[enasisabitch.livejournal.com]

a fence/wall won't stop them. they have found tunnels from mexico into the US made by people crossing over illegally

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i agree, it's an economic problem that requires an economic solution.


Border fences and brandishing guns, forming militias, institutionalizing low-grade harassment only keeps people in the shadows. It also keeps their wages low, and this makes me very cyclical about the motives of some of the people who claim to want to "solve" the immigration "problem."

militias and fernces don't to much to stem the several hundred thousand illegals that cross over each year.

being illegal is what keeps them in the shadows. and it leaves them vulnerable to being taken advantage of, mistreated and/or cheated.

We have(hate) this in Russia

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Yea... it's nice law. In Moscow it's very profitable business for the police.

You go walk to nearest barber shop, police car stops nearby.

-Your documents, please.
-Sorry, I just forgot it at home.
-Ok, then you must go with us to police station.
-No please, I have to go.
-Pay for the walking without ID.
-I have only 15$.
-No... 20 minimum. 40 in police station.
-RRR...
...
After 3 hours your mom comes to this police station with you documents.
You dont pay anything and go for free.
3 hours lost, barber shop closed.

You had nice experience and interesting discussions with fellow-sufferer.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law: Why? What do they want?

They probably want the law enforced in a state where it's estimated 1/13 people (500k/6500k) are an illegal immigrant. Couple that with the current detrimental environment (high unemployment, reduction in federal income, rampant government borrowing, etc.) brought about by Liberal policy and it's easy to see why people would want the law enforced.

Also, a Driver's License is a common ID carried by most citizens (but not illegal immigrants) that would be the most economical method to reduce the above ratio.


those taxes are diverted to serve people who are not from this country and don't pay taxes

The theory is actually that income generated from illegal immigrant taxation < cost of illegal immigrant federal services.


Our nation would be diminished if all illegal immigrants vanished

Diminished how? Citations from relevant sources, please. If it's from an employment standpoint, I'm sure there are plenty of people that would be willing to take those jobs that would then be open if illegal immigrants were forced to leave.


The thing is, I don't really see what else we can do

Not surprising!

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

While it is true there is a segment of the population worried about immigrants taking our jobs, they tend to 1) Be Union members (and hence not Republicrats) and 2) have little understanding of economics (a side effect of that union membership thing)

There are also those who are worried about the drugs and violence brought across the border with immigrants and again here the problem is largely one of lack of understanding as 90% of that problem is a factor of the drug war and not one of immigration. End the drug war and you would in fairly short order see opposition to immigration drop as the gangs would no longer have an easy source of money.


The majority however are not so worried about loss of jobs or crime as they are about the welfare state. Eliminate the welfare state (or at least make it impossible for immigrants to receive any benefits under it for an extended period of time) and you would see opposition to immigration drop like a rock.

Finally yes there are a significant number of people who see the ignoring of laws as the problem with illegal immigration. The correctly recognize that for a society built around the rule of law to function that the law must actually be followed and regardless of how they stand on legal immigration they cannot fathom allowing illegal immigrants to stay unpunished.

So, what is the solution? Well unfortunately the real solution is politically unrealistic as it involves the dismantling of the welfare state and the Mexican People staging a revolution to overthrow the criminals (both gang and corporate) that currently run their country and putting a stable honest government which actually pursues the rule of law in it's place. I mean really, from a resources standpoint the people of Mexico should be the second wealthiest people in the Americas, it is a RICH country and it is only their corrupt political system that locks 90% of their population into bone crushing poverty that makes them want to come here illegally and work for less than minimum wage.


That said, some common sense things which could actually happen and would make the problem better.

1) Fix the immigration laws to make it immeasurably easier to legally immigrate. Basically in order to gain a green card a person should have to prove only the following. They do not possess certain communicable diseases (unless they have already been accepted for treatment at an American research hospital). They have not been convicted of and are not wanted in connection with certain violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.). That they have enough money to cover them for 12 months of living expenses or a current legal resident willing to sponsor them and accept the responsibility of paying their living expenses should they not be able to find work.

2) Pass laws altering all federal entitlement programs to state that no immigrant can receive services until 5 years after they have entered the country and no illegal immigrant can receive services at all save those necessary for the bare minimum maintenance of life and then only long enough to repatriate them to the country of origin. Any Immigrant who applies for government aid will have 12 months to repay all aid received before they will be deported.

That only leaves left the question of what to do with the Illegals currently here.

Well I agree, the concept of kicking them all out is problematic at best but on the same respect they are all guilty of a crime and need to be punished for that so here is what I propose.

Any current illegal immigrant can travel to offices we will set up outside the country and apply for a green card. The application will be automatically granted upon payment of a $2000 fine and with proof that the person has been gainfully employed for at least 12 of the preceding 36 months or 1/2 of the time they have been in the country (which ever is lesser) and verification that they are not wanted in any criminal investigation. Employers who employed these immigrants are indemnified against all penalties if they cooperate with the immigrants in providing them proof of employment. This program would exist for 2 years and at the end of that time anyone found in this country illegally will be deported and barred from ever being allowed in the country again.

[thies.livejournal.com]

given that 1) is largely the requirements for the green card lottery plus moderate education requirements what you'd want to do is convince the general population that with 6.5 million participants annually and 100,000 winners the number of winners should be increased.

[thies.livejournal.com]

substitute citizenship with permanent residence and you get more people in agreement as it can't be seen as one party just doing it to grab a bunch of future votes

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Or maybe there are more people who can understand what the law actually says than we thought.

Lies, damn lies, and pollsters

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Could that means that about 40% of the population supports a law that forces you to carry proof of citizenship on your person or risk being detained until you can prove that you are a citizen? I wonder, how many people really understand what this law means? Could they have taken the question to mean "Do you support immigration laws?" (most people do) rather than support this particular law?

The poll probably didn't ask that.

My favorite polling story involves one I got called for, that involved a report that the government department I work in spent a year working on (though I had nothing to do with it personally). The report came out to much fanfare, with the lovely title "The road to self-sufficiency." (Poorer Canadian provinces get 'equalization' payments from the Federal government to top up provincial income and allow them to provide services closer in quality to the wealthy provinces. We get those payments right now, and the goal is to boost productivity in the province enough that we don't qualify.)

The report was ballpark 1000 pages long. Unsurprisingly, most people only knew anything about it based on what was on the TV news: that there was a report.

So, I get called on the poll. They ask what I know about the report, and one of the options is "I know of it, but haven't read it". I take that.

The next question is "do you agree with the reports recommendations?" Notice that I just said I haven't read the report, I have no idea what it actually says. That of course isn't a valid answer for the poll, and there's also no indifference option. It's agree/disagree.

Unsurprisingly, when the results of the poll come out later, people overwhelmingly support the report. People also overwhelmingly know nothing about what it says, but that part didn't get reported so widely. Most people heard a question asking "do you support the plan for self-sufficiency?" and said yes, because who is against a title like that?

Almost certainly there are answers in these results that are using the same thinking. The question in this case was based on "what you've heard". How many people in that have 'heard' only the most basic idea (that there is a bill in Arizona targetting immigrants) and have absolutely no idea what the thing says?

On another note, I don't get it

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Maybe this is an issue that just doesn't translate across the border, but for the life of me I can't understand the US immigration debate. The idea that deporting people who enter the country illegally is controversial is completely baffling. Why even have an immigration policy and system if it's not enforced?

Do you want these people in the country, or not? If so, give them a process to become legal. If not, get rid of them. The current plan of leaving them illegal but being unwilling to deport them is just bizzare.

Re: On another note, I don't get it

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The American left is largely responsible for the issue for two reasons:

1) An amnesty plan, or some sort of accelerated path to citizenship, would result in more left wing voters due to the demographics of most illegals.

2) Being able to point to the opposing group and say "you're racist for wanting to kick out brown people" is great red meat for the base. It's also completely unsubstantiated, but hey.

This is not to say that the right does not demagogue the jobs and crime issues, but they're also the ones in favor of enforcing existing laws and are yet still looking to get more immigrants naturalized and given citizenship.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

The war on immigration is akin to the war on drugs. We are losing both and pouring vast amounts of money into trying to make them work. They are both a fool's errand. I feel the same solution is appropriate to both: If you cannot effectively prevent a given criminal activity, there comes a point where you should consider making it not criminal. Both drugs and immigrants provide a service that people want. The way to gain control over the situation is to decriminalize and effectively regulate. The key is regulating it only enough to reasonably enable the collection of taxes.

In the case of immigrants, you should not be automatically deported if you don't have all the necessary byzantine paperwork that requires a legal scholar to figure out(*) (http://web.archive.org/web/20070311043931/http://www.rudman-winchell.com/mbj-2003winter-01.htm). It should be made easier to work, pay taxes and own property if you aren't a citizen. You should not fear deportation, you should be allowed to grow and prosper under the American system of governance, and have a reasonable path toward citizenship.

So in short, open the borders, decriminalize immigration and make it easier to become part of the American Culture. We have nothing to fear from immigration, in fact we have a lot to gain. Without immigration, the US population would be shrinking, making it nearly impossible to continue the level of income necessary to maintain our standards of living. Any criminal activity that comes from immigrant populations should be treated as criminal activity, funded largely by the net taxation we get from immigration.

(*) For the link phobic. If for example you are here under a temporary visa and you marry a US citizen, you cannot leave the US and come back because there is no reasonable expectation that you are now entering temporarily. You will be stopped at the border and forcibly estranged from your spouse because you failed to apply for, and receive, a permanent visa.

[little-amiga.livejournal.com]

The thing that people who don't support the law are ignoring (including myself) is that a law like this already exists, just isn't enforced because it's a federal law. So really, the states are being proactive in something that is already normal. After all, don't countries request carrying a passport or things like that? And for what? So that they can ensure that we don't mess things up in their country. This is like that.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

There is a law that requires citizens to have identification or face arrest until identification is provided?

[enasisabitch.livejournal.com]

the problem people have with this bill is how can someone act like an illegal immigrant. if someone who looks white is an illegal immigrant i really doubt anybody will stop them because they are acting "suspiciously". this whole thing seems to target anyone brown not necessarily just hispanic or mexican people.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

this is the real problem

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

The people want the laws to be obeyed and enforced. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Why is that so hard for you to understand that the unequal application of law to entire classes of people is forbidden for a reason?