Two-Thirds Say Illegal Immigration Hurts CT
A new poll commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform reveals that most Connecticut residents believe overall immigration to the U.S. should be reduced
Two-thirds, or 66 percent, of Connecticut residents that participated in a recent nationwide poll believe illegal immigration is hurting the Nutmeg State, according to a statement released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The poll, which was commissioned by FAIR and conducted by Pulse Opinion Research last month, also reveals that 67 percent of Connecticut voters oppose in-state tuition aid for illegal aliens looking to attend public universities. There is a bill currently being considered by the state that would allow children of undocumented immigrant aliens to qualify for in-state tuition.
State Sen. Toni Boucher, a Republican who represents Bethel, New Canaan, Redding, Ridgefield, Weston, Westport and Wilton in the 26th Senate District, told Patch last year that passing the bill would take away spots from citizens and legal aliens.
The poll also revealed that:
68 percent believe the state should be involved in immigration enforcement
39 percent believe illegal immigrants take jobs from American citizens, while 35 percent believe they fill jobs American workers will not do.
51 percent support reducing overall immigration to the U.S.
"It is clear that elected officials in Connecticut and most of the state's congressional delegation in Washington are out of step with the views of the people who put them in office," Dan Stein, president of FAIR, said in the statement.
According to FAIR, there are 120,000 illegal aliens currently living in Connecticut with 85,680 of them in the workforce.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. The Immigrant Investor (EB-5) Visa: A Program that Is, and Deserves to Be, Failing (Backgrounder)
2. Jessica Vaughan Discusses Marriage Fraud on FOX News Boston (Video)
3. Pollsters, Immigration, and the Republican Primary (Blog)
4. DREAM Act Advocate Confronts Mitt Romney (Blog)
5. The Core of the Argument over Self-Deportation (Blog)
6. Gingrich: Legalize All Illegal Aliens (Blog)
7. Gingrich Adopts the Rhetoric of the Left Again, This Time on Immigration (Blog)
8. Is the GOP 'Anti-Immigrant?' No (Blog)
9. Public Safety Takes a Back Seat to Illegal Alien Advocacy (Blog)
10. President Obama's State of the Amnesty Remarks (Blog)
11. Case Histories: BIA Opens a Loophole in Immigration Enforcement (Blog)
12. 3 More Victims of Weak Immigration Enforcement (Blog)
13. Self-Imposed Latino Limitation? (Blog)
14. 'Border Wars': Good Reading for Those Looking to Widen Their Lens on the Borderlands (Blog)
15. Got Visas? (Blog)
16. President Obama Rolls Out Mickey Mouse Visa Policy (Blog)
17. Alabama Punished for not Playing Amnesty Game (Blog)
18. Uncle Omar, Visa Lottery Fees, and Other Tidbits (Blog)
19. Big Majority of Foreign PhDs Stay in the U.S. Many Years After Degree (Blog)
20. Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, It's Off to America We Go (Blog)
21. Haitian Nonimmigrant Farmworkers? But Only if Growers Ask for Them (Blog)
22. Santorum Gets Better on Immigration (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
Where is John Doerr's credibility when he told a generation of MBA students he did the right thing by firing Steve Jobs? John Doerr should ask Kit Wong why Chinese engineers only sought venture capital when they were out of work and Wong told them to start restaurants to learn entrepreneurship as they rejected Wong when they had safe jobs. Foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral grant guzzling behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students. Meanwhile perfectly good American engineers have to get jobs at Home Depot. And Google cancels my account for saying these things but dares to complain about censorship. Why should the liberal media get SOPA protection?
ReplyDelete