Redstate

But my 2nd choice was #6.  

I just want better enforcement of today's laws.  Given the government's track record since 1986, I can't accept any clemency, legalization, amnesty, or anything for illegal aliens, because it'll just be a repeat of Simpson-Mazzoli's worsening of the probelm.

I would, however, be willing to accept an increase in new, legal immigration in exchange for heightened enforcement and border security.

No legalization though, none whatsoever.  If they want to get legal, let them leave first and get in the back of the line to get in.  I can't compromise on that.

Deal with the Border.  Deal with the employers.

Deal with Welfare and Free Medical.

THEN worry about what to do with whatever remains of the 11 Million Illegal immigrants that we have.

At that point, I'd accept legalizing them.  

As long as we have a way of preventing any more from coming in.

And we need to do the same with the Canadian border.  Isn't that the one the 9/11 hijackers crossed?

Call it Amnesty.  That's what it is.  Calling it "Legalization" just makes my brain hurt.

The only "enforcement-only" option isn't labelled that way.

By the way, I'm for enforcement, followed by relaxing quotas and streamlining the immigration process, but no guest worker program.  I like immigrants, but I like laws followed, too, and I certainly don't want our economy dependent on non-citizens.

As I have explained before, "amnesty" means different things to different people.  I accept that a lot of folks consider any legalization plan to be an amnesty, but others will hear the word "amnesty" and conclude that it means a specific type of plan where the illegal aliens suffer no consequences at all for lawbreaking.  I think "legalization" is a more neutral term since it necessarily implies that the conduct is presently illegal and since it can refer to an array of policy options.

This should have been a poll option. I voted "status quo" but would have liked to have seen the qualifier "with actual enforcement of the current laws." We really don't have status quo right now because our laws aren't enforced.

The House approach has been correct, but without an Administration that will enforce the laws the old ones or potential new ones are meaningless. This debate is over, as we have seen Sens. Specter and McCain start to come around, and a four-term incumbent who favored open borders win election against a kook only after he came out for more secure borders and greater enforcement. If anything needs to be taken from the Utah-3 election last night, it is amnesty is not an issue a successful candidate will embrace.

the bitter pill of amnesty if it followed, and was contingent upon, sustained, vigorous enforcement that reduced illegal immigration to some small fraction of its current level.  What I will not accept is any increase in legal immigration, and would greatly prefer to see it cut at least in half and made to discriminate strongly in favor of the educated, productive, and English-speaking.  

When I read th choice "I'm happy with the immigration laws now" i immediately thought that included "i am also happy with the wanton disregard for those laws."

I still wonder what exactly that choice means? Perhaps there could have been another choice: "We dont need more laws, just strictly enforce what we have"

The lack of enforcement of the current laws is one of the things that irritates me the most about the immigration issue.

The various new plans claim to toughen the current laws by fining employers of illegals $20,000 or $40,000 per incident. It doesn't matter if the fine is $5,000 or $5,000,000 per incident, until they enforce the law the real fine is $0 per incident.

I would prefer that they reduce it to a slightly painful level of $5,000 and strictly enforce it. I don't want to bankrupt the businesses that hire illegals I just want them to stop. If a person was fined $5,000 for hiring an illegal to mow their lawn, they would stop.  If a business was fined $50,000 for hiring 10 illegals it would not bankrupt them, but it would likely make them stop.

If we stop hiring illegals, fewer will come.

Enforcement is the key.

My guess is most everyone who votes for the "I'm happy..." option is actually unhappy with the President's laxity of enforcement.

Unfortunately, there is no such option in your poll..therefore the poll results will worthless.

but I also think we should make legal immigration easier-so that coming here illegally isn't worth the risk.

I think part of the reason so many come illegally though, is because there is no real enforcement-either at the supply or demand end.

You have to make legal immigration the desirable choice for everyone involved.

But I do think we could sustain greater numbers of legal immigrants who want to come here and work.

Since we're talkinga bout what we want out of the legislature, no bill is no bill is no bill.

The whole point of the exercise is not to poll everyone's first choice but to ask what your priorities are if presented with two choices, neither of which is ideal.  Which is often the situation in Washington.

How about this? First incident, the fine is $1000. For the second it's $10,000. The third will cost $100,000 and so on. I'd also like to see jail time for repeat offenders. Of course, unless there is some attempt to enforce the law, the whole thing is meaningless.

Where is the option for choosing improved enforcement only?  Why this false choice between enforcement + "legalization" versus nothing at all?  

The debate has clearly shifted and Congress is moving closer to public opinion (which is strongly pro-border security).  As we get closer to Nov, that senitment is going to put a lot of pressure for a border security bill.

Unless and until they strictly enforce the law, they are just pretending to care. They can pass all the laws and include all the fines they want, but they will still be just as ineffective until they are enforced.

Congress claims they're going to take a real bite out of illegal immigration, but they seem to always forget to put their dentures in. Without teeth (enforcement) it's all meaningless posturing.

It's a very biased poll. Even with the slanted questions there are still 40% rejecting amnesty. That would probably be 70% if there was an enforcement only option.

you did not read the set-up!!

 However, while closing our borders to illegal entry is absolutely the most important thing to do, we really have adequate laws on the books to handle those illegals that already are here if the government would just enforce them.  The main thing is that we need to increase the number of "guest workers" and/or green cards that we issue and ease the path to legal entry because we have more jobs available than americans can fill. We DO NOT have many jobs that americans WILL NOT DO we just have  more jobs than there are americans to fill them.

-paul-    

your poll is still useless, because none of the questions reflect the reality that many of us against the amnesty plans are against the amnesty plans not so much because we think the amnesty is a bad idea, but because we believe its a setup for a sucker punch: all amnesty, no enforcement. Until politicians deal with that reality, they can't pass a bill the people will support. And all the whining in the world that we have to choose between less than ideal solutions won't change that.

for "legalization" wherever someone trying to slant a poll puts in "legalization" because they think it will poll better. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and choosing different words doesn't shift the badness of the idea, only the perception of the badness of the word. If useful words are destroyed for political gain, eventually we lose the ability to talk to each other.

I felt like what I feel about the situation wasn't listed in the poll.

Enforcement first with increase legal immigration AFTER we cut the illegal stuff.

Just noticed that about 45% (including me) voted for the strictest enforcment option, just wondering if it coudl be the same 45% who (like me) voted against the flag-burning amendment.

Same 45%? Your thoughts? Ramifications?

Here's the interesting question, though, especially for those who want genuine enforcement but are not fans of legalization plans. Which is more important? If it comes to this, would you blow up an enforcement-plus-legalization bill because stopping anything that has an amnesty or amnesty-like component is more important than improving enforcement? Or would you accept a compromise bill that does both?

The presumption is that enforcement only would draw large support, but is unrealistic as a bill coming out of Congress. So, as an enforcement-backer, would you rather take legalization with it, or would you rather neither happen instead of any legalization?

The presumption is that enforcement only would draw large support, but is unrealistic as a bill coming out of Congress

Given that such a bill would have, as you say, large support, the question becomes why should it be unrealistic to expect such a bill to come out of Congress?

I think you are correct in your assessment, I just differ in my conclusion. If our political overclass is contempteous of the wishes of the electorate then we have problems which go far beyond the immigration issue.

will only be valuable to those politicians that wish to force their view of immigration reform... therefore, the poll is still worthless.

our political class is anything but contemptuous of the wishes of the electorate, but follows them with the solicitisnous of a lover toward his beloved. Social Security. Gasoline Prices. Drugs for old people. Pre-election troop drawdowns. Mortgage interest deductions.

I could spend all night writing a list. To the extent that a a modicum of legislative backbone and independence still exists, I say it's a blessed thing. As Churchill once remarked (I paraphrase), nothing tempers one's faith in the intelligence of our species like spending five minutes conversing with the average voter.

We are a republic, after all, not a democracy.