Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

If you listen to the White House and the media you would think that the AZ law is an abomination and hated by the people. According to the latest Rasmussen poll that couldn't be further from the truth.

Spoiler

Most U.S. voters have been following news reports about the new immigration law in Arizona, and 55% favor passage of such a law in their own state.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 33% of voters are opposed to enactment of that kind of law. Another 12% are not sure.

When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.

Just 23% say police officers should not be required to do this.

Earlier reports suggested that the Arizona law would allow police to stop anyone they suspected of being an illegal immigrant. The law as it stands, however, applies only to situations where someone has been lawfully stopped for some other violation.

Since the law in Arizona has become popular in the polls, some political figures in Washington have sought to move away from the issue. Interestingly, 58% of Mainstream voters say immigration as an issue is Very Important in terms of how they will vote in the next election, a view shared by just 20% of the Political Class.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Most voters have supported the Arizona immigration law from the start, despite criticism of it by President Obama and others, including most major Hispanic groups. Only 25% have a favorable view of those who marched and protested for immigrant rights in major cities following passage of the law.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters say the issue of immigration is at least somewhat important in terms of how they will vote in the next election. This includes 50% who say it is Very Important.

Among those who say immigration is a Very Important issue in their voting decision, 78% favor a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters remain at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-three percent (43%) don’t have this concern. This includes 27% who are Very Concerned and 15% who are Not At All Concerned. This level of concern is consistent with previous surveys.

Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are much more supportive than Democrats of having a law like Arizona’s in their home state.

But when asked the separate question of whether police officers should be required to check the immigration status of those stopped for other reasons, a majority of Democrats say yes.

While 68% of Mainstream voters favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, 66% of the Political Class are opposed.

But there’s a complete reversal of opinion when the Political Class is asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law. In that case, 69% of Political Class voters agree that a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of people they stop if the officer suspects they’re here illegally.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of all voters say they have followed stories about the new immigration law in Arizona at least somewhat closely, with 50% who are following Very Closely.

Most voters continue to say as they have for years that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers. But most Americans also favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.”

Americans also continue to overwhelmingly believe that English should be the official language of the United States and reject by sizable margins the idea that such a move is racist or a violation of free speech.

Eighty percent (80%) of voters believe that those who move to America should adopt American culture. Again, this level of support has remained largely unchanged for years.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

The November mid-term elections are going to be real interesting.

 

The reasonable suspicion is something courts have a very hard time proving wrong. Cops have a great discretion as far as that point is concerned. I iirc said that some pages earlier.

Ah, and what does that look like in practice? Oh never mind ..

 

I do listen, at least somewhat, and I don't recall hearing that...unless you mean this:

I guess that translates into "Abomination and hated by the people."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37232608/ns/world_news-americas/

 

Again, you have to assume racism is going to happen before you can say that it's a problem at all. This law can be enforced without racism or racial profiling, and several of us have given step-by-step walkthroughs of how it could happen without racism.

Chandos, as for Obama's position about the law, I opened up this thread, in part, with:

That's pretty harsh.

 

Not really. I think is is fairly accurate. But I know you don't agree with him.

 

Several of you, you in particular, have said how they wished it should be implemented. I just think that view is naive.

I am not even against racial profiling per se. It only happens to be against US law.

Quote the law all you want - the Arizona immigration bill cannot be implemented practically without racial profiling, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. But you like this bill and prefer to be of the view that it cannot be against the law, and that the bill can be implemented without racial profiling and the assurances in the law are sufficient safeguard.

You know, what must not be cannot be - or: Because you like it, it must be legal and isn't racial profiling. It's kinda funny to watch your mental gymnastics to that effect.

 

Oh, that's easy BTA. They are going to do what they have to do - and train them in enforcing SB 1070 without racial profiling. So whatever they will end up doing - it won't be racial profiling, after all that's explicitly prohibited in the bill.

wink, wink

 

Whether you agree with him or not, it's still harsh criticism of the law. Saying that it undermines the basic notions of fairness is an extreme criticism of any law or policy. LA's city councel has said worse about it, but not by much, and in similar veins.

Ragusa, there was a time when peaceful implementation of integrated schools was naive. There was a time when one million black people peacefully marching on DC was naive. The thing that changed wasn't the thing being implemented, but the culture in which it was implemented. Again, if the law is applied by racists, those racists need to be brought to task, not the law. If it's applied by fair-minded non-racists, then there's no problem with it.

No moreso than yours. You do realize that you're doing the same thing you accuse me of, only in reverse, don't you? You (apparently) like the view that this law is inherrantly racist and illegal, and so you assume it must be. Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, this law can be applied without racial profiling, and it can even be applied effectively without racial profiling. Whether it will be or not is a seperate matter, but that's something that needs to be fixed if and when it comes about.

 

No, it isn't. That's really what the crux of the argument against the law is about. He has framed this as a matter of basic notions of fairness which goes right to the heart of the debate. But you are entitled to your opinion, nevertheless.

 

Chandos, nothing you said makes the criticism any less extreme. In fact, it only seems to reinforce how severe the criticism is. It's a direct attack at the very heart of all laws and justice: the notion of fairness and equality. And again, whether you agree with it or not, whether it's right or wrong, it's still a harsh accusation.

 

Nuance for you. Read carefully. Then think. Go to bed. Think again. Then respond:

• I do not think the law is racist. That's the straw man you're chasing after ever since you started posting here.
• I am persuaded that indeed the instigators behind that law are nativists, whose attitudes led to a bill that sensibly can only be implemented by what it claims to expressly prohibit: Racial profiling.
• I think that, whatever it's language says, it will have a discriminatory effect.
• That is because SB 1070 by it's goals and thrust inevitably involves racial profiling. That it what I meant with effect beyond language. It is likely to be successfully challenged on these grounds.
• I think it is likely that SB 1070 also will be challenged, probably successfully, because of it's intrusion into Federal executive and legislative domain.

All that is not difficult to understand so I marvel at your difficulty grasping this.

 

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But that's all it is. Btw, nothing in your comment proves that it's extreme. Nevertheless, they are quite dramatic. I especially liked this one:

"It's a direct attack at the very heard of all laws and justice: the notion of fairness and equality." ​

I think the Academy Awards are in March.

 

We have touched the question who you'll check for their immigration status in Arizona. It is unlikely the police will check blue eyed blonde Caucasians because they might be ... Swedes overstaying their tourist visa. Same for Eskimos who might be ... Danish citizens without a right to be in Arizona. Because the big immigration problem is about immigrants from Mexico i.e. Hispanics will be checked.

I find it implausible that the idea is that the police, having finite resources, will just control everything (more vehicle stops etc.) to generate a maximum amount of possible chance encounters that will allow them to then check more people for their immigration status.

If tasked with enforcing immigration law as a priority, as SB 1070 mandates, they will focus on that and focus on likely offenders i.e. Hispanics. And of course, the will stronger enforce federal immigration laws against those they pick up anyway.

As I lined out the threshold for reasonable suspicion is very low. Cops will find some inscrutable reason (i.e. within the discretion of the cop) to focus on what the individual cops consider likely immigration offenders - and in Arizona that will be, as I said already, not blue eyed blonde Caucasians or Eskimos, but Hispanics. Because the reason cited will be inscrutable, it won't be racial profiling and meet the letter of the law. See, as I said, it's very simple.

 

You have repeatedly argued that the law cannot be implimented without racial profiling, and that those who think it can are naive. If you don't think that classifies the law as racist, well, you're making a distinction that's apparently lost on all the major news outlets, as well as most if not all of the protestors. If that's the case, I admit I may have generalized more than I should have. You seem to think the law requires racial profiling. Better?

Persuaded by what? You haven't shown anything that would cause this bill to require racial profiling. All you've shown is that a racist will use racial profiling.

How does the 'goal and thrust' inevitably involve racial profiling? Again, I haven't heard any convincing evidence on this point. Every arguement you've posted to explain this point has assumed racism.

That's a seperate point, and it may have some weight. Whether it'll hold up in court or not I don't know, but I imagine we'll find out.

Ragusa, I have a request for you, which may help us to understand each other better. I would like you to write up a brief rundown of how you think a non-racist police officer would try to enforce this law. Please, if this hypothetical officer fails to do so, explain why.

First off, again, you're making assumptions that aren't necessarily warranted. Secondly, even if they only investigate hispanics, if they only stop hispanics without driver's licenses, registrations, or proof of insurance, and who don't understand commands in english (i.e. 'Registration, please'), that's not racial profiling. It's criminal profiling. It's akin to saying the serial killer is a white male in his mid-to-late 30s who has served in the military and recieved a less-than-honorable discharge. So long as they don't cause trouble for the Latinos who have driver's licenses, registrations, proof of insurance, and speak a reasonable amount of English, it's not racial profiling.

I agree, that's quite implausible. I don't see why the police would seek to force contact at all. Just checking the people they pull over for other (legitimate) offenses seems more than sufficient to me.

What part of this bill makes it more of a priority than other laws? I didn't see anything in the bill that mandated priority.

And again, this is only true if you assume that the cops are racist. And again, if they are, I don't see how this is any different from before. Here's what I see:
Racist cop pulls over a Latino for a BS reason. Latino produces driver's license, registration, proof of insurance, and speaks fluent english with only a slight accent. Before the law, the officer writes the Latino a ticket and let's him go, because that's all he can do. After the law, the officer writes the Latino a ticket and let's him go, because he knows that these above facts are more than enough evidence to toss most any 'reasonable suspicion' out the window. If he did pull this Latino in, he'd almost certainly find the man was a legal citizen, and the legal citizen would sue his ascii off for racial discrimination, false arrest, and harrassment. If the Latino can't produce a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance, and speaks only broken english, before the law, the officer pulls the Latino in for driving without any of these things and to ascertain his ID, while after the law he'll add suspicion of being in the country illegally. And he should. Because that's definitely a reasonable suspicion.

 

Interesting glimpse into situations that the Arizona bill is likely to generate:

For all those who think that showing ID will suffice to avert all trouble for US citizens. There apparently is no guarantee for that.

 

I think assuming this will happen all over Arizona is assuming a worst-case scenario, but there should definitely be an investigation into what happened, and who did it. Could the immigration officials not tell the document were real?