Immigration Watch International (2): 82% of NYers call migrant influx a serious problem, 58% want to stop the flow: poll

Thursday, August 24, 2023

82% of NYers call migrant influx a serious problem, 58% want to stop the flow: poll

A whopping 82% of New York voters said the unrelenting influx of migrants to the state is a serious problem — and a strong majority now say it’s time to “slow the flow”, a new poll released Tuesday revealed.

“New Yorkers – including huge majorities of Democrats, Republicans, independents, upstaters and down-staters – overwhelmingly say that the recent influx of migrants to New York is a serious problem for the state,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg.

The Siena College survey found that 82% of voters said the surge of migrants to the Big Apple and the rest of the Empire State is a serious problem — with 54% of respondents saying it’s a “very serious” problem.

Only 16% of voters said it wasn’t a serious problem.

New York City and the Empire State have long backed sanctuary policies to aid asylum seekers and other undocumented immigrants who came here illegally looking for better opportunities.

But voters are losing their patience and getting fed up, feeling the massive influx of migrants crossing the southern border and arriving here is putting a strain on New York’s social service network for residents, including schools.

More than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City, and 57,000 currently receive assistance or shelter, according to Mayor Eric Adams.

Voters were given two statements from which to choose: “Should New Yorkers accept new migrants and work to assimilate them into New York” or “New Yorkers have already done enough for new migrants and should now work to slow the flow of migrants to New York.”

In a landslide, 58% of voters said New Yorkers have done enough and it’s time to restrict migration, while only 36% of respondents said the state should accept more asylum seekers and help them assimilate.

Nearly 80% of Republicans and 60% of self-described independents said it’s time to curb the flow while Democrats were split between helping more immigrants and clamping down on arrivals.

Voters were also asked: “Turning to the issue of migrants coming to New York. Looking back over the past 20 years or so, do you think that migrants resettling in New York has been more of a benefit, or more of a burden to the state?

The result was stunning: a plurality of voters — 46% — said migration has been more of a burden, while only 32% of respondents said it was more of a benefit.

Sixty-seven percent of Republicans and black voters — by a 2-to-1 margin — said immigration has been more of a burden than a benefit.

Voters were also asked if they support or oppose relocating new migrants from temporary living conditions in New York City to more permanent housing in communities around the state.

Nearly two-thirds of New York City voters supported the relocation, while there was more opposition than support in the suburbs and upstate.

Many upstate and suburbanites and their elected officials have unleashed a fury of opposition to busing migrants from New York City to hotels in their communities.

Voters also gave Democrats President Biden, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Big Apple Mayor Eric Adams poor grades for their handling of the migrant influx.

Republicans told The Post they plan to hold them and other Democratic candidates accountable for the mess in upcoming campaigns.

A strong majority — 59% of respondents — flunked Biden’s handling of the crisis while only 31% of voters approved of his performance.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/22/82-of-nyers-call-migrant-influx-a-serious-problem-58-want-to-stop-the-flow-poll/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, August 24, 2023

82% of NYers call migrant influx a serious problem, 58% want to stop the flow: poll

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors