According to a recent national poll of 1002 adults by ABC News/Washington Post, a plurality of adults say they are less likely to vote for a candidate for U.S. Congress who supports a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” (ABC News/Washington Post Poll p. 17, March 4, 2014). The poll found that thirty-eight percent of adults said that they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate, and thirty percent said they would be more likely. (Id.) Twenty-nine percent said it wouldn’t make much difference, and three percent had no opinion. (Id.) Thus, according to this poll, among adults, support for amnesty, even described as “a path to citizenship,” results in a net loss in support rather than gain. It should be noted that a random sample of 1002 adults, which may include illegal aliens, permanent residents, and non-voting citizens, may find different results than a sample of likely voters.
This poll undermines arguments made by amnesty proponents that Republicans must embrace amnesty to win national elections, particularly during presidential election years with larger turnout. For instance, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) argued in January that “we can win in 2014 without resolving it [immigration], we can’t win in 2016 without resolving it.” (National Journal, Jan. 14, 2014) To the contrary, this poll suggests that rejecting amnesty would actually improve Republicans’ electoral position, even among a wider electorate. Similar analyses by FAIR and Eagle Forum draw the same conclusion. (See FAIR’s Analysis: “Republicans Have an Immigration Problem — And Amnesty Won’t Solve It,” Oct. 2013; see also Eagle Forum’s “How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party, Feb. 2014)
1000 was a Representative Sample of Americans?
I’d like to see the analysis proving the sample was valid.
As a math minor I’d say its “WAY” too small a sample to represent all Americans and is likely skewed open border from our MSM.
Irrespective its against amnesty anyway.
Really Amnesty!!! why are you so ignorant……..that is not amnesty….\
If you go to that poll, it can be filtered to Registered Voters and that makes the anti-amnesty position even a bigger winner. Plus, if you could filter down to LIKELY voters, I bet the result would be even stronger.
The victorious GOP candidate in Florida’s district 13 special congressional election, David Jolly, unequivocally declared during the campaign his opposition to granting amnesty or legal status to illegal immigrants. If Jolly had come out in favor of Speaker John Boehner’s immigration principle that calls for legalization of illegal immigrants, Congresswoman elect Alex Sink would be the one packing her bags for Washington D.C.
Republican can win with no immigration issue, and are true, politic support legalize criminals alien will hurt herself. Next President must finish one time forever a immigration problem. First any illegals come here illegals, must prosecute, jail and later deported, stop support Mexico gov and doing take a own responsibility for push illegals North and NOT patrol a border, plus nothing doing for stop drug smuggler to North. Illegals must treat how is criminals broke a Law enter illegal, and like any criminals must arrest and jail. Mexico like cancer live from USA for decades. Why politician not heard voter, when said out all illegals? Mexican are a big problem. Next election Dems will loose like in 2016, Why we must respect political right from Liberals? Mexican and all another Latinos must ban for any reform.
Even when you go to sites that generally would be considered liberal, you can tell by the agree/disagree comment totals that most people are not in support of amnesty, and mostly because they don’t trust that we will have enforcement afterward. If you read this poll, the problems the Republicans have are with women and the working class and “no amnesty” is one issue on which many agree with them. A lot of people are coming to realize that mass immigration only hurts the middle and working class.
Now the president is saying he is going to urge his agencies to be “more humane” when it comes to considering deportations. You know exactly what he’s saying. He’s saying stop deportations, even more than he is already doing. He’s just waiting until after the elections to do an amnesty by executive order. Something he says he can’t do, but he said that about the Dream Act, and then he did that by executive order. You say you can’t trust him? That’s his fault, because he plays fast and loose with his required duties under the constitution.
But Senator Chuck Schumer says let’s pass “reform” and then not put it into effect until 2017 when the president is out of office. But slick Chuck, who promised in 1986 there wouldn’t be another amnesty, also wants to extend the time illegals would be eligible. In other words, extend our “broken system” for another three years so more illegals can flood the country and be rewarded with amnesty. Why should anyone trust these liars.
To be clear, Schumer was in the House in 1986 and one of the leaders there for amnesty. Reagan thanked him personally for his work in the House on the issue.
You’re Right Leland
Most Democrats and legal American Latinos think like we do, its the MSM and foreign/corporate lobbyists that fund the MSM that allegate from their “Mother Goose imaginary analysis” that legal Americans [Democrats too] mostly support amnesty.