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

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?