There's no doubt that the new Arizona immigration law is popular nationally, but that still doesn't mean the issue's going to work to the GOP's advantage this fall.
When we polled Colorado in early March Michael Bennet and Jane Norton were tied. Last week we found Bennet with a 3 point lead. One of the biggest reasons for that shift? Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.
Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn't have if that bill hadn't been passed. We don't see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they've improved with Hispanics.
A majority of Americans may support the bill but it could still end up working to Democrats' benefit this fall if most of the voters who care enough about it for it be a determining factor in how they vote- or whether they vote- go in their direction.
And I'll be real interested to see our next polls in New Mexico and Nevada where we found Democratic candidates under performing with Hispanics when we did surveys there during the winter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
On another note I could have sworn CA won the vote, why is SC being polled???
A shame the wanting to enforce our borders and our laws is something that can drag a candidate down, rather than build them up.
Enforce our borders first!
are these polls of registered voters or could they include illegals?
Its interesting that the Dems are happy that the AZ law will support them when its contrary to what's best for our country.
Similarly, giving a standing ovation to a foreign leader after they denounced a state of the USA; it doesn't get more dastardly than that.
Even if the AZ law and other illegal immigration crackdowns means the GOP goes to permanent minority status in this country, it would still be worth it to stand by actual American principles of respect for the law rather than sell out just for more votes like the Dems did.
Well let's just hope that you have to be a LEGALIZED citizen to vote.
That is the law but will they inforce it?
I don't much care what citizens of another country think about our laws. If they don't like them they can easily go back to Mexico where things must be more fair.
anon-
These polls are of registered voters, the lists are from Aristotle, Inc.
Another question should be, as Hispanic American citizens realize that the Democrats have been playing racial politics by purposely misstating what's in the Arizona law, will Hispanics stay with the Dems? I bet this number goes down after another month while Obama and the liberals lose the white vote even more because of their immigration stance.
I think, the right thing to do is to enforce the law of the land. Then, they need a big blitz in the spanish channels to explain the law and make them feel comfortable. When they really know what is in the law, they are going to support this immigration law and also vote on the issues.
Iteresting.....in Mexico if a group of immigrants might upset the natinal balance...NOT ALLOWED IN....and here we have a large group that have been graciously allowed to live in the best country in the world...they get in and prompty start voting to destroy the country that SAVED them...and in effect turn it into the struggling 3rd world cesspool that they fled from...they DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICA ...and do NOT belong here therefore!!!
I can't believe how anti-white the USA has become.
James,
I think it's more anti-stupid.
"Similarly, giving a standing ovation to a foreign leader after they denounced a state of the USA; it doesn't get more dastardly than that."
So if a foreign leader had criticized Jim Crow laws in front of Congress and Northern Republicans applauded, that would have been dastardly? States make their own laws, and they don't have to be applauded by members of Congress or other states, nor foreign leaders whose affairs are affected by them.
"On another note I could have sworn CA won the vote, why is SC being polled???"
We did both SC and CA. We usually do 2 states each weekend.
These poll results are hard to reconcile with other polling showing Jan Brewer surging by double digits in the AZ gov race. If anyone was going to be hurt by a Hispanic backlash against the AZ law, it would be her.
Heads up Colorado...you have company coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icZx0aeUcx0
Nothing must stand in the way of La ReConquista.
"and here we have a large group that have been graciously allowed to live in the best country in the world"
Graciously allowed to live here? There are 47 million hispanic people in this country and 62% of them were BORN HERE, you twat. They're American for the same reason you are, and there frickin voting preference sure as hell isn't going to destroy the country.
Seriously, you people are effing crazy.
I find it rather amazing that you would find some correlation between the Arizona bill and a drop in support for ANY Republican politician. If anything, I would personally suspect that a Democratic politician would be far - FAR more likely to lose support than what a Republican politician would - especially one (Dem) who has voiced any kind of criticism towards the bill. When you take into account that 70%+ of Arizona voters (including Hispanics) support the bill, as well as 63% of ALL voters (also including hispanics) nationally, it seems to me that what you are suggesting would be pretty much near impossible to be true.
Read a lot of horsecrap from posters here. I am sick of propaganda. So, let's separate the chaff from the wheat.
The part of this abomination called SB-1070 that is legal and in direct accordance with federal code is:
1.) that illegals are indeed illegal
2.) that legals are supposed to carry papers with them.
The parts that are blatantly unconstitutional are:
1.) the free reign given to each policman/woman's individual discretion to stop anyone they wish to check for papers without reasonable evidence of a crime.
2.) that individuals or groups within a community can sue their local police if they think or feel that the police is not prosecuting this thing vigourously enough.
the first horror here redefines search and seizure and I am 100% sure it will lose in court.
The second horror is the closest we have ever come to the NAZI Nuremberg laws of 1935, for in those hateful laws, individual citizens were also granted the right to report law enforcement officials they thought or felt were not adequately oppressing jews. This parallel is direct and absolutely undeniable and any human being with even a shred of decency in him will automatically know that this is WRONG, no matter how serious this immigration problem is.
And no rider law signed after this one will be able to remove racial profiling. The politician in AZ are paying lipservice to not wanting racial profiling, but at the end of the day, there is no way possible to enforce this law without using racial profiling.
Janet Brewer's ink signature was barely dried on ths law, right extreme groups were calling to use Cinque de Mayo as "report an illegal day". So, cut the horsecrap. No one is going to be looking for blond haired, blue eyed canadian illegals in AZ. They are going to be looking for hispanics.
So, don't blame the hispanic community for it's understandably negative reaction. From Sotomayor to choice stupid comments from such gems as Tancredo, it is obvious to hispanics that many on the right consider them to be less than human.
I will be surprised if McCain even gets 10% of the hispanic vote in November. And that's 9% too much anyway.
So, cut out the propaganda horsecrap. the law is half unconstitutional and will not stand in a court of law. Basta.
So, it is also obvious that AZ waited until an election year to pull this crap.
This might be the first time you've conceded that the immigration bill is popular nationwide. Did we have to wait until you had a rebuttal before you would concede that the American people find immigration enforcement commonsense, not "controversial"?
@Bonncaruso
There is NOTHING inappropriate with SB 1070. Federal law already requires immigrants to carry papers. AZ SB 1070 just gives Arizona the authority to check the documents already required by federal law. this is ENTIRELY appropriate.
The law also requires that the contact with law enforcement to be initiated for reasons besides immigration suspicion. These LIES about being pulled over for looking Hispanic are despicable attempts to smear law enforcement. The liars who spread this misinformation are just smearing their own constituents in law enforcement, a sure way to bring on their own defeat.
Bonncaruso,
I am not a white & I can speak for your view on police stopping latinos. I do look like them but I am not a latino. 3 times I have been stopped for speeding and crossing the red light. Every time, I never got a ticket. I showed my papers like any other person and I explained the reason for speeding and they warned and let me go. May be, it is just that people like you are propagating the small percentage of racial profile myth that will be there till the end of the man kind.
Bonncaruso.. Save the half-hearted indignation to the Arizona law and while you're at it, save the straw man arguments too. What I'd like to see is some moral consistency from you. You think the Arizona law is bad? Then condemn the same law where ever you see it. If you want to boycott Arizona for their decision, then show some guts and boycott California as well. California law is virtually identical to the law recently passed in Arizona (CPC 834 b). But I won't hold my breath waiting for that. A lib would never boycott California. In fact, I think this entire show was a TRAP. You were set up. You fell for it. I'm thinking Karl Rove.
If people understanding the "Truth" of something actually had meaning in this republic, than the lies told about the health care bill would've had no effect on its perception. Since the electorate had no interest in finding out what were lies and what were facts, then is it really probably that the average latino voter is going to go by anything other than his emotional gut feeling that the white men don't like his brown brothers? As for enforcing our borders, I bet the native americans wished they had enforced their borders, instead of letting them white folks from england build stuff and clear land where they had lived for many centuries. These posters, all those anonymous drones, can whine all they want, but what is really inside them is a clear and obvious racism and a panting desire for their needed version of reality to be true. Like lots of other little kids, they honestly believe that screaming will get people to "believe" their way of seeing reality. Statistically, people vote by emotions. Tea partiers, black folk, latinos. Only rich white dudes vote for a specific reason: keeping their money entirely for themselves and refusing to pay their own way in terms of national security.
Christian Liberty and Ranjit:
Just one question. Have you READ the law? I have.
2 parts of it are obviously unconstitutional. Basta.
there is no hatemongering in calling a horrible law what it is - horrible.
Immigrant families are American families. 4 million children currently live in mixed immigration status families where one or both parents are undocumented. That means that many millions more Americans citizens have members of their own families who are undocumented.
Christian liberty wrote:
"AZ SB 1070 just gives Arizona the authority to check the documents already required by federal law."
No. It give the police the right, under personal jurisdiction, to stop anyone they want, for any reason they wish to conjure up.
SB 2162, the rider law to SB 1070, replaces the word "contact" with “any lawful stop, detention or arrest”. Believe me, the cops only need to say that they thought maybe, just maybe, that there was a hole in the right back light of your car, and that is good enough to make a lawful stop and ask for papers.
This is inherently unamerican. And will be used for direct racial profiling. So, stop lying about it. A spade is a spade is a spade is a spade.
Federal Law does not say that legals are to expect to have their papers checked at every stop. It only says that they must carry papers, a rule that every industrialized society has for it's guest workers.
And we already see the negative side effects of this stupid, stupid, utterly stupid law. Businesses are already hurting in AZ. And as far I am concerned, they call all go bankrupt until AZ decides to rejoin the civilized world again. This law will NOT stand. It will be struck down, and rightfully so.
sunny.texas:
you lied. CPC 834 b is not the same as SB 1070. Unlike you, I actually took time to read ALL of it. CPC 834 b allows authority to check the immigration status of someone only AFTER they have already arrested that person for a suspected crime. That is RADICALLY different that AZ and makes for a HUGE difference and a constitutional one at that. Of course, if you haven't taken the time to read both laws, you would not know this. So, hope you don't fall into the trap next time. And I am not a lib, I am a centrist. But this law in AZ is an absolute abomination. And righties need to learn to read before spouting off at the mouth.
Bonncaruso,
Just what are these mythical provisions that are supposedly unconstitutional? Just where is the link to the legislative text you claim to have read? Why should we have any reason to believe you have read any part of the actual law? Your non-specific rantings are just too vague to be verified? Or maybe that's the way you want it? Just spread whatever lies you want to invent and leave no proof at all.
Bonncaruso,
That is a total LIE. There is NOTHING in the law that would even remotely come close to "profiling". The law is entirely appropriate. To suggest otherwise is to smear law enforcement.
"Federal Law does not say that legals are to expect to have their papers checked at every stop. It only says that they must carry papers, a rule that every industrialized society has for it's guest workers."
Talk about splitting hairs!! existing law already says to carry papers, but not to expect to be asked to present them as identification!?!?
LOL. Your petty complaints are absolutely LAUGHABLE. The law is entirely appropriate. It merely enforces existing law. To oppose AZ immigration enforcement when the federal government has neglected to do their job enforcing the law is to oppose any and all enforcement of existing law.
You have offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to suggest anything wrong with the law. There is no profiling in the bill at all. It is not only perfectly appropriate to give law enforcement the tools to enforce current law, like AZ does, but it would be delusional to claim anything wrong with AZ enforcing the law.
The ONLY harm is coming from the DELUSIONAL leftists who are protesting the law. These delusional leftist states and cities will only harm themselves. Arizona will be stronger than ever because of this enforcement law. And the rest of the states will join Arizona in doing the right thing. Arizona is ahead of the curve. Arizona is the trailblazer that is doing what is right and showing the way for the rest of the nation.
Bonncaruso
Why so nasty? We can disagree without the name calling. In fact, I have read both laws but I think you knew that.
First, Cali law is virtually identical. Only shorter and better written. Since by now you have read CPC 834 b I'm sure you agree. And since we agree, let’s move forward. How do we make the bills better? How do we manage immigration and secure our borders at the same time? Second, and speaking of reading the laws, do you really believe that Big Sis and the AG didn't read the law before they spoke? With all those lawyers in D.C. you bet they did. So why claim not to have read it? Whatever I think of them, I don't think they’re that stupid.
Third, in comparing this law and the alleged racial profiling you predict will follow to Nazi atrocities, please, you're better than that. Some of the other bloggers I see in here... maybe not, but you're better than that.
Fourth, why is it that those on the left always accuse us on the right of believing that minorities are "less than human" and then you on the left go and speak for them? Most naturalized Hispanics I know don't want anyone speaking for them.
Fifth, you claim that the Arizona law is a "bad law" but wasn't it your hero, Bill Clinton who recently said, "A bad law is better than no law?"
So, Christian Liberty, I am assuming you can read.
Here is the law
Page 2, Article 8: Enforcement of immigration laws. 11-1051 (Indemnification)
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
(Note: they were so concerned about the consitutionality of "contact" that they changed the wording in the rider law - SB 2162. This alone proves that the makers of SB 1070 are scared that it will not hold up)
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Page 4, Section 4
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
(See my reference about a bad, or supposedly bad back light).
So, that should get you started. Before spouting at the mouth, learn to read. If all christians are like you, then it gives christians a bad name, accusing others of "mythical provisions". I rebuke you for your comment. And you deserve the rebuke.
Unlike you, I have provided evidence.
Many parts of the bill are in order and according to federal law, but 2 sections are not. And just wait until it comes to implementation. Just wait.
Bonncaruso,
"unamerican"???
Ever read anything by the founders? Benjamin Franklin, for example, would enthusiastically support Arizona. Samuel Adams would say that you're unamerican for opposing Arizona. Just what loony ideas do you have that conflict with the COMMONSENSE Arizona enforcement effort?
Let me see now....by an almost 3 to 1 (71-24) margin, Arizona voters support the (SB-1070) bill, while nationally its being supported by an almost 2 to 1 margin - and yet, as you suggest, Hispanic voters who oppose the bill are somehow going to represent a negative impact on republican candidates? Are you serious? As for Colorado voters, they also support the Arizona bill by a 55-35 margin (+20%). In the meantime Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer's approval rating has skyrocketed since passage of the bill and has gone from trailing her Democratic opponent, Terry Goddard 36-45 (-9%) before passage of the bill, to now leading him 52-39 since it's passage, for a net gain of 23%. If anything, The Gop has an awful lot to benefit in voter gain as a result of what's going on in Arizona and the firestorm that it has ignited across this country. It is extraordinarily difficult for me to imagine it being any other way. But then again too, maybe you know something that I don't. We'll see.
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
This is ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE and nothing new. Law enforcement could ALWAYS act on probable cause after initiating a lawful contact. This is nothing new and nothing inappropriate.
" NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION."
NOTHING in this law is different than ordinary law enforcement procedure.
You have just proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Everything in the law is absolutely appropriate.
Arizona has just done the nation a great service. Arizona's law is the wisest bill passed all year. Multiple states across America will join Arizona because Arizona was wise enough and courageous enough to do the right thing. Thank God for Arizona.
What will be the "fallout" from the immigration bill. It will be a tremendous groundswell of support for Republicans. Just like Nixon's law and order campaign drew millions of independents and Democrats to back Republicans in 1968, Republicans' commonsense support for Arizona (and other states soon to follow) and Democrats' insane blubbering about NONEXISTANT "profiling" will lead millions of independents and Democrats to support Republicans in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Law and order first. Border enforcement first. The proper time to debate immigration policy changes is AFTER existing law is properly enforced. And that is why America is grateful for Arizona doing the right thing when Washington apparently will not.
This is the trash being littered across Arizona by illegal immigrants trespassing into America. Is it any wonder why Arizona's law is overwhelmingly popular?
http://conservativebadlands.blogspot.com/2010/05/trashing-of-arizona.html
Post a Comment