What the public thinks about illegal immigration

From The American Spectator:

A tough stance against illegal immigration is a popular stance -- as long as it is tough in the right way. Also, the public absolutely insists that English should be the official language, meaning the only official language, in these United States -- and Latinos in the United States agree with the broader public.

Those are the two key findings from a mid-April survey by respected pollster McLaughlin & Associates, conducted at the behest of the conservative group Citizens United. (And clearly, the sample population in the survey was not tilted rightward: Various cross-tabs in the poll show absolutely no bias in either the liberal or conservative direction.)

Let's zip through some of the poll numbers first, and then discuss what they mean.

By a margin of 63-36, Americans believe that illegal immigration is a major problem (vs. a minor problem or not a problem at all). Latinos also agree, but by a much closer split of 50 to 47.

By a 74-22 margin, Americans agree with the following statement: "We have to stop the flow of illegals before we address what to do about those who already are here." Latinos agree, 63 to 32.
Somewhat surprisingly (to me at least), when given six choices as to what is "the best way to stop illegal immigration" (including getting tougher on employers who hire illegals and increasing federal funding for more border agents and new technology), the choice that finished dead last among the six, with only 7 percent, was "building a wall or fence along the US-Mexican border to prevent all off-road illegal immigration into the US." When asked directly, though, whether they would support a border fence, 50 percent said yes and 41 percent said no. This was one of the only issues on which there was a marked difference between Latinos and the broader public: Latinos dislike the fence idea by a 35-61 margin.

On the other hand, Latinos by a percentage of 56-35 support the hiring of 6,000 new border patrol agents, bringing the total to more than 18,000. The broader public, according to the poll, supports more agents, 70-20.

Now, here is where the poll gets really interesting: 88 percent of all respondents, including 88 percent of Latinos, favor English immersion classes for students from other linguistic backgrounds. This puts the lie to the idea that Latinos would prefer to be taught in those trendy "bilingual" classes that try to ease such students into English by teaching in their original language first. And 80 percent of Americans, including 62 percent of Latinos, favor making English the official language of the United States.

Support is also strong across the board for requiring valid photo identification in order to vote, and for "a tamper-proof identification card system to determine instantly whether a job applicant is entitled to work inside the United States," and also for prohibiting states from issuing drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants.

Finally (for our purposes), 68 percent of all those surveyed, and 56 percent of Latinos, support enactment of a "zero tolerance" policy requiring deportation of illegal immigrants.

There's lots more in the poll (available here and here), but it all pretty much tracks the same trends as the poll questions I've highlighted.

Nothing here surprises me. I've known for some time that Latino immigrants living in the US legally support strict enforcement of our borders and oppose amnesty for illegals by almost as large a margin as native born Americans.

What I want you to take a look at is the part about how so few Americans favor a border fence as the first option. Note that a majority support a fence if that is what it takes, but would prefer not to have to go that far. The writer has this take on the matter:

The border fence earns support, but not strong support, for instance -- which could indicate that, symbolically, an American people steeped in the ideals of freedom, especially freedom from physical restraint, are less enthusiastic about something that looks physically confining. Forgive the amateur psychologizing here, but the lesser enthusiasm for the fence could signify that one of the very ideals that many opponents of illegal immigration want to hold inviolable is that a free society depends on ordered liberty of the sort in which most citizens voluntarily abide by our laws, rather than have them physically enforced, because obeisance to the duly constituted laws of our land creates a society in which freedom itself can flourish more widely.

Wait: That sentence was rather dense. Try this: We ourselves enforce our laws by obeying them, because doing so serves the greater good from which we, too, benefit.

We want anybody who comes to this country to understand and live by that ideal. That ideal is harder to symbolize with a fence than it is with a border whose strictures are observed without a physical barrier.

Note that a majority still says that if it takes a fence to do the job, then by all means build a fence. But that's the least popular option, the fallback if other options fail.

This may all be true, but a fence is still going to be necessary. What we need to understand is that Mexicans are coming to this country not because they feel that life would be a little bit better here than in Mexico. They are coming here because they feel that America offers them the only chance they will ever have of escaping crushing poverty in which they live ugly short lives grubbing for bare subsistence while they watch their illiterate hungry children, those who don't die of childhood diseases which are virtually unknown outside of history books in the US, play in garbage choked and sewage flooded streets. Children who their parents know will have absolutely no chance, apart from getting across the Northern border, of living lives one microscopic bit better than their own lives.

America is the promised land to them and they will risk death to get here because the money they can send back mean food and medicine for their wives and children and if they can successfully establish themselves in the US the chance of bringing their family here as well.

Playing by the rules and obeying the law and getting in line and doing things the right way mean less than nothing when you've already lost one child to dysentery and the whooping cough looks like its going to take the other. Its going to take a concrete wall 18 feet high topped with razor wire and backed up with the full complement of electronic surveillance and constant patrolling to stop the flow of illegals across our Southern border.

If you were in their place what wouldn't you do to get here? Who wouldn't you KILL to get here?

If I make it sound bad in Mexico that is only because it is bad in Mexico. And I am not without compassion. If it were not a matter of national survival I would support letting them come here. But America cannot survive as a free and prosperous nation if we open our borders in that way and make a pathway to citizenship to ignorant Third World peasants.

You want to help Mexicans have a better life without destroying the US here's how you do it (not that we ever will). Invade Mexico. Demand unconditional surrender and declare Mexico to be a colony of the United States. Put every last member of those 11 families which own everything and keep Mexico the way it is because that is how they stay rich and powerful up against the wall and blow their brains out.

Then spend the next 75 to 100 years bringing Mexico up to the standards of a modern industrial nation (you know the way the British did with India). And all the while take enough of Mexico's abundant natural resources to pay us for our trouble (you know like the British did with India).

At the end of that time give them their independence and they can join the community of free nations and be an asset to the world (like India).

But I digress. What those Republicans running for president need to understand is this:

WHAT IT ALL MEANS is that, first, the problem of illegal immigration remains of serious importance to the voting public; second, the public wants the borders closed and strongly disapproves of illegals; third, the public thinks immigrants ought to be assimilated into our culture and abide by our laws and customs; fourth, Latinos do not differ very much from the broader public in their views on these subjects; and fifth, that a candidate who learns to talk about these issues in the right way will gain an advantage without risking a backlash among the ever-increasing number of legal Latino voters in this country.

The Republican who "gets" this and articulates it will take the nomination and probably the White House as well.

Are you listening Fred?