New Alabama Opinion Poll Shows Broad Support for State Immigration Enforcement Law
A statewide opinion poll of likely Alabama voters, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, finds broad support for the state's immigration enforcement law, HB 56. The survey of 500 likely voters was commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and was conducted on March 6.
Seventy-five percent of Alabama voters support HB 56, with 52 percent of voters saying they "strongly support" the law. Only 24 percent of likely voters in the state oppose HB 56, including 11 percent who "strongly oppose" it.
Despite a vigorous effort by opponents of HB 56 to discredit the law, Alabamians overwhelmingly dismiss the contention that it will damage the state's economy. Only 18 percent of respondents think HB 56 "will harm Alabama's economy by depriving businesses of workers they need," while 59 percent believe it "will free-up jobs for other Alabama workers and will save the state money on services for illegal immigrants."
The poll was conducted while advocates for illegal aliens were carrying out what they described as a "reenactment" of the 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. However, the poll shows that voters overwhelmingly reject the assertion that HB 56 will lead to racial profiling or other forms of unlawful discrimination. Just 22 percent of Alabama voters agreed that HB 56 "is likely to lead to discrimination against people who appear foreign, especially people who are Hispanic." Two-thirds of Alabama voters, 66 percent, believe the law "will only be enforced when there is evidence that someone of any race or ethnicity is in the country illegally and will not rely on profiling."
As critics of HB 56 press for repeal or substantial changes to the law, Alabama voters remain firmly committed to maintaining the law and allowing the state to play a role in immigration enforcement. Fifty-four percent of Alabama voters want to keep the law on the books, compared with just 18 percent who strongly support and 15 percent who somewhat support repealing the law.
"Despite shrill and relentless attacks by illegal alien advocacy groups, the media, and the Obama administration, HB 56 continues to enjoy strong support from the people who should count the most: the voters of Alabama," commented Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "This is a phenomenon we see repeated over and over again wherever an effort is made to enforce immigration laws. Advocates for illegal aliens make a lot of noise and hurl unfounded accusations, while voters steadfastly register their support for common sense immigration enforcement policies.
"HB 56 enjoys broad support among Alabama voters because, like Americans all across the country, they do not believe that the federal government is doing the job or protecting their interests," continued Stein. "It is clear that voters in Alabama believe that mass illegal immigration is a serious problem and that the state has a legitimate role to play in enforcing laws that discourage illegal immigration."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Jessica Vaughan Interviewed by MSNBC Rock Center on the Foriegn Exchange Student Program (Video)
2. Religious Agencies and Refugee Resettlement (Memorandum)
3. USCIS Again Focus Resources on a Tiny Alien Population — Wandering Ministers (Blog)
4. Where Are You, Now That We Need You, Booker T?: Black Leadership and Immigration Reform (Blog)
5. USCIS Annual Report Lacks Editorial Punch of the Phone Book (Blog)
6. Sunshine, Saguaros, and Smugglers (Blog on our 2012 Border Tour)
7. Album of 2012 Border Tour: Tohono O'odham Nation (Pictures)
8. Album of 2012 Border Tour: Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (Pictures)
9. Album of 2012 Border Tour: Ajo and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (Pictures)
10. Album of 2012 Border Tour: Yuma, Imperial Valley, and San Luis (Pictures)
11. Album of 2012 Border Tour: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Pictures)
12. Why You Should Be Concerned About Utah's Key Role in the Amnesty Movement (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.
No comments:
Post a Comment