You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(Rasmussen) Most voters continue to believe federal government policies encourage illegal immigration, but they still aren’t convinced states should go it alone in enforcing immigration laws.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally, the highest level of cynicism since June 2012. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, while 15% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Huh.
Still, 48% think relying on the federal government rather than states to enforce immigration laws is the best approach to dealing with illegal immigration. That’s down two points from last August but is in line with findings since February 2011. Forty-two percent (42%) think it’s better to allow individual states to act on their own. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. Support for state action was slightly higher in 2011.
I’d actually agree. The federal government should be the primary enforcement method, establishing specific rules, as dictated by the Constitution, working hard to protect the country and its citizens from those who are entering our country illegally. Unfortunately, Los Federales like to play games.
Most voters (61%) still favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Twenty-four percent (24%) oppose such sanctions, while 15% are undecided. Support for these sanctions have run in the high 50s to low 60s for years, and Americans told us in a 2013 survey that employer sanctions are the most effective way to stop illegal immigration.
I’d very much agree, and have written so in the past on multiple occasions.
But 57% believe if a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer should automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree, and 10% are not sure. These findings also have stayed fairly steady for years, although support for these checks hit a high of 73% in March 2009.
I’d agree. Are you a legal citizen or here legally? No? Arrest, detain, deport.
What if your license is in your jacket at home? Arrest and detain?
What about passengers in a car? Can the police demand to see their papers too, or just the driver? Or do you have a good “idea” who is here illegally just by looking at them?
Should every person in America be required to carry proof of citizenship at all times?
Are you in favor of imprisoning CEOs and other corporate executives if they have undocumented workers? Will your political party support that?
I’ve actually written many, many times about putting the penalties on those who hire and employ those who are here illegally, whether through coming illegally or over staying visas. Heavy fines. And, yes, even prison for continued violations.
Yes
You really have a reading comprehension problem don’t you? The premise to which Teach was agreeing was : “But 57% believe if a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer should automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally. ”
When a person is pulled over for a traffic stop, the driver has to produce a valid license or face other, additional consequences that have nothing to do with their status of being here legally or not.
Courts have ruled on this as well. If the passenger is deemed to be a part of the investigation or crime, then they have to produce ID. There is nothing new here other than you trying to create a strawman argument.
Another strawman from you.
That was not what Ronald. Reagan advocated for
Teach the average length of time am “illegal ” has been here is about 7 years
Would you deport a mother or father and leave their Anerican citizen children without one or both patents
I believe the current vostnofnfodter family placement is 25000$ per year
It would am order of magnitude more to deport than to allow them yo remain
The size of yhe illegal population has decreased under Obama
If the illegal are forced out who is going to pick our agri products ?
You ?
Ameticans want something like what Reagan wanted. A bleat path to citizenship
As far as stopping all border crossing they have yet been able to build a fence a ladder can not go over
That fence works both ways. It also makes leaving the USAord difficult
Is that even English, John? You really need to fix your autocorrect or something.
Things change.
So what?
Would you put the mother or father in jail for violating other laws?
Huh?
Huh?
Mostly due to the crappy Obameconomy.
We increase temporary migrant workers, with better monitoring and control of their immigration status. The hiring companies would be responsible, and, you’ll love this, they would also be responsible for providing health insurance, so as not to burden the hospitals.
Nope, I have a job, thank you. But, hey, lots of Americans are without.
What’s a “bleat path”? Does it have something to do with sheep?
So we just give up and allow the country to be invaded?
Do Americans tend to cross the border in the middle of nowhere when they head down to Mexico on vacation?
Not only do things change, Reagan’s proposal was based on the belief that the plan would end illegal immigration. It didn’t. Why would anyone want to revisit a plan that didn’t work? Its the old thing of “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
No only “so what?” but this is more garbage “facts” from john. We cannot even count the number of illegals in the country and somehow john thinks we know how long the average illegal immigrant has been here illegally. I suppose that john’s point is that the length of time someone has been here should mitigate their crime when in essence, it should enhance it. Someone who comes and stays a little bit is different than someone who comes and repeatedly flouts the law of the land. A person who doesn’t pay their taxes for a year is treated much differently than a person who hasn’t paid for 7 years. In john’s warped world, a continuing crime should be applauded and rewarded.
While Teach makes an excellent point, another thing to consider is that the US would allow a parent to take their child with them. Also, john’s question is based on the premise that someone should benefit from an illegal act.
Right now there are states that have “filial-responsibility” laws which require the next of kin be responsible for the medical bills of a deceased relative. These laws are enforced when there is no illegal action by anyone.
In the case of a child being abandoned by their deported parents, the child gained US citizenship through an illegal act, They should be responsible for the costs of citizenship that other legal immigrants have to pay. Let’s see how committed to these children people like john are with their wallets.
Good answers Teach. Of course, johnny the troll won’t respond, learn to spell or even consider your answers. He’ll simply repeat the same discredited points. Next thing you know, he’ll be saying “the US Navy believes in illegal immigration.”
Liberal World. They think if we just dump enough money into the problem, spread enough awareness, etc, things will suddenly change.
I’m actually quite considered as to John’s mental health. Seriously. We’ve seen an utter breakdown of his grammar and English skills over the past 5-6 months. Way too many issues to be chalked up to fast typing or smartphone usage. We all make mistakes, but, good grief. John’s are out of control.
John? Hello?
Friday morning links
Missing The Lampoon There Are Over 200 Bodies on Mount Everest, And They’re Used as Landmarks What scares the new atheists – The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact