Surprise! NYT/CBS poll reveals big majority of Americans favor AZ immigration law , page 1

Surprise! NYT/CBS poll reveals big majority of Americans favor AZ immigration law , page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 4-5-2010 @ 10:19 AM by jdub297

Although in a bit of back-tracking, they try to minimize the numbers, both CBS and the New York Times polling shows that a 60% majority of Americans support or strongly support Arizon'a SB 1070 immigration reform and enforcement law.

And this despite using a question loaded with negative phrasing and ominous innuendo. The polls reflect that the public supports state enforcement where the feds won't do their part.

They asked:

As you may know, the state of Arizona recently passed a law that gives the police the power to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally, requires people to produce documents verifying their status if asked, and allows officers to detain anyone who cannot do so. Do you think this law goes too far in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration, doesn’t go far enough, or is it about right?

Outside commentators have noted the failure of the MSM liberal bias to sway the opinions of a cross-section of adults polled by CBS News and the Times polling departments.

The question did not say that the law specifies that police questioning can take place only in the context of a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest.”

The question did not touch on the law’s use of the phrase “reasonable suspicion,” nor did it say that “produce documents” means producing a driver’s license, which is a familiar experience for most Americans.

Nevertheless, 51 percent of respondents said the bill is about right, while nine percent said it doesn’t go far enough, 34 percent said it goes too far and five percent didn’t know. ...

You could just as accurately say that 60 percent of those questioned say the bill is about right or doesn’t go far enough, while just 34 percent say it goes too far.

Beltway Confidential blog

Here's what the Times and CBS own reporters had to admit:

CBS News:

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed say the law, which critics say essentially mandates racial profiling, takes the right approach, and nine percent say it should go even further.
Thirty-six percent say the law goes too far.
Two in three Republicans say the law takes the right approach, along with roughly half of independents. Among Democrats, support for the law stands at 38 percent. Americans living in the South and Midwest are more likely than those in the East or West to support the measure.

New York Times:

The overwhelming majority of Americans think the country’s immigration policies need to be seriously overhauled. And despite protests against Arizona’s stringent new immigration enforcement law, a majority of Americans support it.

The public broadly agrees, across party lines, that the United States could be doing more along its border to keep illegal immigrants out. The view was shared by 78 percent of the respondents.

Ooops.

So, now that they admit the AZ law is popular, how long before the MSM report on the violence of the anti-enforcement protesters?

I won't hold my breath.

jw

[edit on 4-5-2010 by jdub297]

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 10:39 AM by endisnighe

Wow, even with the TOTAL bias and attempt to slant the reaction, they still got a 60% approval.

Now, I have said it before, as long as a law does not breach the Constitution or if it does, I could care less what the people think. Constitutional, Constitutional, Constitutional. Since NO one has made a compelling argument against the Constitutionality, I find it fine.

The only thing close was the federal authority but since the federal government failed in its enforcement of law, the State has EVERY right to protect it's citizens.

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 10:51 AM by TheCoffinman

the manipulation of opinon is disgusting.... how can anyone say the media doesnt have an agenda??

grrrrr makes me furious...

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:11 AM by gandhi

Most people here should realize that when they say they only want the ILLIGALS gone, they are obviously going to take a little more than that.

This is just the excuse they need for the death camps to be put into use.

"but the bill is only for illegals you idiot"

And the war was going to end in 2010.

They didn't stick to that plan though.

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:15 AM by jdub297

reply to post by endisnighe

The only thing close was the federal authority but since the federal government failed in its enforcement of law, the State has EVERY right to protect it's citizens.

Fed "pre-emption" has long been used to "trump" states' rights and local legislation/regulation. That's why a farmer who grows and consumes his own produce is still subject to Commerce Clause federal regulation.

But, where the fed "abandons the field," you have a different argument. So long as the AZ law only calls for local enforcement of federal laws, there shouldn't be a problem.

It may step over the line where it criminalizes unlawful/undocumented entry into the state. But, unless they actually try to prosecute a misdemeanor violator, instead of turning them over to ICE/La Migra, they probably are safe.

Anything else would be a "test case," or sham suit and most courts will reject them.

jw

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:16 AM by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by gandhi
Most people here should realize that when they say they only want the ILLIGALS gone, they are obviously going to take a little more than that.

This is just the excuse they need for the death camps to be put into use.

Yeah.

Obviously.

Because of the death camps.

Can we have some serious discussion now?

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:17 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
the manipulation of opinon is disgusting.... how can anyone say the media doesnt have an agenda?? grrrrr makes me furious...

You should one day compare the questions used by the various pollsters, like RCP, Rasmussen and Pew, to see the way a slant one way or the other will produce the desired "opinions."

(Or, the selection of the population; adults, registered voters and likely voters will produce completely different results.)

jw
[edit to add parenthetical]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by jdub297]

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:22 AM by PhyberDragon

IMHO, I always reckoned the Immigration debate was a ruse to avoid the magician's real slight of hand. National biometric ID. There will be, in my prediction, provocateurs and repeated flashing of the same violent images over and over again, until the Senate can use the events as fodder to suggest that a blanket ID process is needed for all. Translation, justification to track and monitor all activities (transportation, travel, health, finances, etc.) onto one easy to use forged instrument. Couple that with the trends for digital currency to replace cash and checks as it is on the rise and doing with debit/ credit transactions and put that currency onto the all in one card (and/ or RFID chip) and Whalaa! you have a self fulfilling prophecy about the mark of the beast. Just swipe your card and do a retinal scan (as some places are now doing) and you have a number acting as agent in commerce for all your activities. just an opinion, feel free to knock it.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by PhyberDragon]

reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:26 AM by jdub297

reply to post by gandhi

Most people here should realize that when they say they only want the ILLIGALS gone, they are obviously going to take a little more than that.

This is just the excuse they need for the death camps to be put into use.

Arizona SB1070 does not "say they only want the ILLIGALS gone." It authorizes local officials to enforce federal immigration laws that have already withstood the tests of time and courts.

By "they" you must be referring to the invisible forces controlling the minds of the weak; or is it just conservatives or ATS members in general?

jw

reply posted on 5-5-2010 @ 02:17 PM by ProUSA

I'm taking an upper level political analysis graduate class right now and I can say to you with 100% certainty that those polls are entirely inaccurate. There have been numerous studies on how surveys found on websites and newspapers are completely subjective to certain people of certain races, incomes, religions, etc... Therefor, making them useless, inaccurate, and entirely misleading.

I have some hard copy versions of the studies, but I'll try and find an Internet source and post them on here.

Bottom line is these types of polls are worth a grain of salt and nothing more.

reply posted on 5-5-2010 @ 02:46 PM by DrMattMaddix

Originally posted by ProUSA
I'm taking an upper level political analysis graduate class right now and I can say to you with 100% certainty that those polls are entirely inaccurate. There have been numerous studies on how surveys found on websites and newspapers are completely subjective to certain people of certain races, incomes, religions, etc... Therefor, making them useless, inaccurate, and entirely misleading.

I have some hard copy versions of the studies, but I'll try and find an Internet source and post them on here.

Bottom line is these types of polls are worth a grain of salt and nothing more.

Absolutely. Statistical probabilities can be off the charts without more regulation of sampling.

Be that as it may, It's something to go on.

MOST polls aren't very scientific, as implied by the OP.

I *think* I'm similar to many other people that have woken up and either smelled the Tea Party, joined the Tea Party or, at least, back their intentions.

NOW, like many others, I'll be paying attention to exit polls no matter how bizarre the source.

Polls (the quantity, quality and diversity of them) will help all of us quantify the end results.

...Unlike politicians that ignore polls and public outcry to their peril.

Polls are the fog lights of a dark misty night.

The OP's poll is a small surprise but not completely unexpected.

Comment from Ghandi

You had something about ending some war... AZ isn't responsible for ending any war. That's the FED's. AND WHOA baby, FED's ARE NOT States.

States' laws, as a rule, are much more contemporary and specific than FED's. States make things happen. Even more so now, thankfully.

Expect that the AZ law will be repealed at some point in the future if and when things get cleaned up down there.

[edit on 5·5·10 by DrMattMaddix]

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 01:01 PM by jdub297

reply to post by ProUSA

I have no doubt that skewed sample populations and subtly-biased questions can render any poll inaccurate, but the authors are the same people who tend to offer polls as "proof" of their favorite agendas.

Too bad that they have to live with unexpected results.

Regardless of the "polls," the fact is the AZ actions are generally popular, much to liberal/progressive dismay.

jw

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 01:26 PM by jtma508

This doesn't surpise me in the least. As a whole I don't put alot of stock in the public's ability to apply critical thinking to anything. And I don't mean to bash this country's populace in particular. It's universal. Look at Greece right now. Or consider that the populace in Germany was behind the policies of the Nazi party when it came into power.

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 04:14 PM by jdub297

reply to post by jtma508

Ask anyone you know what "racial profiling" means, and you will see the mis-perceptions that the MSM and the administration have engendered.

Ask them whether they favor secure borders and enforcement of existing immigration laws, and see how that compares to the 1st question.

mind boggling

jw

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 06:08 PM by endisnighe

reply to post by jtma508

Well, you may think the public is a bunch of sheeple.

I would like to point to the one FACT they keep getting right-

80% of the country does not TRUST our government!

I think they get THAT one pretty frelling great!

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 07:01 PM by jdub297

reply to post by endisnighe

I don't know, but I've been told ...

it didn't take an 80% majority in 1775 to decide a new responsive government was called for and justified under "natural law."

So, do we continue to live under "federal" (used loosely) law, or the natural law under which people with the ability of free expression are willing to exchange a bit of freedom for collective security?

Great point@

s4u

jw

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 07:21 PM by endisnighe

reply to post by jdub297

It took 3% of the people, that is all.

Now we have 80%.

Hmmmm?

Is that a sign or a kick in the nuts?

Something has to break, someone or something has to break the idiocy curve. Or the same crap will continue. That is what I feel is the standard ideal.

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 09:52 PM by jdub297

reply to post by endisnighe

I think it's a sign of the impotence that reliance on a nanny state has already engineered.

We expect the government to pick up the tab for our welfare once we reach a certain age, our health care, our housing, and our education.

It is very comfortable.

So long as a majority feel entitled to ride on the backs of the govern, they will pay homage to their benefactors and keep them in power.

Look at Greece where the populace is indignant that the government is no longer willing or able to provide employment, health care, retirement income, education and energy security.

Hold your pocket a little bit wider, Obama can't quite get to the bottom of it yet.

jw

reply posted on 7-5-2010 @ 12:14 AM by endisnighe

reply to post by jdub297