04/13/2007
I was going over some polling data and I came across a series of New York Times polls on legal immigration. We all know that pollsters are notorious for skewing the results in favor of amnesty, but when it comes to legal immigration they are usually straight forward. For over a decade, the Times has asked, "Should LEGAL immigration into the United States be kept at its present level?" Since the illegal immigration debate began to boil when Bush made his first post 9-11 amnesty push, the percentage of people supporting increasing legal immigration has become significantly higher than it was beforehand. The highest percentage they have is 22% which was also the most recent one on this list, which was probably at the height of the anti-illegal immigration sentiment, following the massive pro-illegal demonstrations.[PDF ][Table below the (more…) tag]Why is support for legal immigration increasing as illegal immigration increases and as opposition to illegal immigration is reaching unprecedented levels?
Virtually every single time I hear Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly or any of their AM Clones open their mouth to denounce illegal immigration, they say it is an affront to the hardworking people who wait in line for their turn. They make ”the rule of law” the only reason to oppose illegal immigration, and occasionally they say they would happily increase legal immigration in exchange for border security. I have even heard prominent anti-illegal figures like Chris Simcox say this. One of the biggest grassroots groups opposed to illegal immigration is called ”Americans for Legal Immigration PAC”
Most of these people (well maybe not Hannity or O’Reilly) are well meaning, but this may make any amnesty victory, a pyrrhic one.
There are no serious bills that are being introduced that will decrease legal immigration, including HR 4437. In contrast, every single piece of legislation proposed by the open borders crowd-Pence, McCain-Kennedy, STRIVE, ”Z Visas” proposes massive increases in legal immigration. When it comes to attacking these proposals most on our side do not even mention the legal aspect.
Unless we change the terms of the debate, even if we defeat amnesty, we will be opened up for a bill that dramatically increases legal immigration, which could be just as disastrous, if not more.
|
Date |
Present level |
Increased |
Decreased |
DK/NA |
|
|
6/19-23/86 |
1 |
35 |
7 |
49 |
9 |
|
6/21-24/93 |
2 |
27 |
7 |
61 |
5 |
|
9/8-11/94 |
2 |
27 |
6 |
63 |
4 |
|
9/18-22/95 |
2 |
30 |
6 |
54 |
9 |
|
12/3-6/95 |
NYT3 |
31 |
2 |
64 |
3 |
|
10/23-27/96 |
CBS |
35 |
8 |
50 |
7 |
|
9/13-14/01 |
29 |
10 |
53 |
8 |
|
|
12/7-10/01 |
29 |
9 |
59 |
3 |
|
|
7/13-27/03 |
37 |
9 |
48 |
6 |
|
|
1/12-15/04 |
34 |
16 |
45 |
5 |
|
|
7/29-8/2/05 |
CBS |
32 |
13 |
51 |
4 |
|
10/3-5/05 |
CBS |
30 |
11 |
51 |
8 |
|
4/6-9/06 |
CBS |
33 |
16 |
45 |
6 |
|
5/4-8/06 |
39 |
22 |
34 |
6 |
|
1 Question read: Should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? 2 Question read: Should immigration to the United States be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? 3 Question read: Do you think immigration into the United States should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same? |
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.