CATO Institute had a big IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL IDENTITY survey, April 27, 2021

Just so people understand that graph:Cato combined the Gallup polls from 1974 to 2020/21 with CATOs April 2027 poll.The graph is a composite based on 2 polling outfit's polls.Gallup had 2 polls in a row, which showed at least 33% support for yearly increases. The last 2.(The silver lining in the universe of immigration polls, is that there are alot of voters, who oppose immigration increases, but, will vote for Democrats anyway.Less than 40% of all African Americans support increasing yearly immigration levels, but 87% voted for Biden. White liberals only support an increase in immigration numbers by a narrow margin over their fellow white liberals who do not, but at least 80% of white liberals reliably vote for Democrats in these times.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

So that means support for higher immigration levels, is high enough (?) for a possible legislative push?If the entire Democratic political class was forced to defend ssf uchva proposal, then the registered Democrats (plus Democratic leaning independents) would surely start to defend the policy, and support could go north of 40%.Biden won by 4.4% and he said during the campaign we can take in 2 million more immigrants a year.I say go for 3 million a year.

Biden offered his immigration plan on Jan 20,2021.It only increased the immigration lottery from 55,000 per year up to 80,000.Put this into perspective.The lottery costs the applicants $330 to apply, and it will never be refunded.23 million people apply per year ( that was the average in 2016, while 2017 saw 22.3 million apply)Are these rich people, who can afford $330 for just a hopeless application?Over 1 million people from each of these countries applied:Egypt
Ethiopia
Iran
Nepal
Uzbekistan
Sierra Leone
Ghana
Nepal
UkraineIn many of these countries, over 10% of the population applies.Liberia's and Sierra Leone see 15% of their people apply.They spend a good chunk of their wealth on VISA applications.The poorest country in Europe is Albania. Over 10% of Albanians shell out the money to apply, each year.8% of the people of Ghana do.Our immigration system is inhumane and I struggle around here to convey the message.

No fee to apply. I never heard of the fee until I read something with bad info. Wikipedia just said the fee is a scam. I found the "fee" on page one of google.There is a fee if you win the lottery.There is also an issue of Joe Biden not providing the resources for the littery winners to be processed in time for the September 30 deadline. Then the winning draw will be worthless, and it is back to the 1 in 200 chance of winning next year. No refund of fee paid, by draw winners, to proceed.The lottery still only awards 55,000 a year, and 13 million applied.

I just noticed somebody again accused me of saying I was not a racist. (The post I was responding to)I care very little about what posters on this site say about race. I find this site to be a tiny group of old white men that prefer to style themselves a certain way. I care very little about self proclamations. I mentioned that word "race" about 5 times, and it was an attempt to get the posts (especially 6 and 12 responded to).Truthfully, I think very few racial minority people would consider posters here to be on their side in any way, shape, or form. But that is just a personal opinion of my own.Again: I never said " I am not a racist (in any way shape or form, even remotely)", "Most of my family members are this race", "I have this many minority friends", etc. so spare these endlessly distasteful & extremely dishonest accusations.This site has some very repulsive themes that are directed at whoever happens to step in here.Some treating the ground this site is laid into as if it is a shit pile. Nobody else will want to step in.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Show me where I denied being a racist.Infact, quote every line and post where I even mentioned the word race (or racist).I know for a fact that I was trying to get you to admit that the only quotation you made of me, from my post 6, was a factual description of American public opinion.My reference to you calling me racist (albeit the exact wording was "prejudice") had to do with establishing the factual interpretation of my post 6.(AzPaul called me racist, when I gently clarified my support for whatever benefits first generation immigrants receive. I was challenging him to admit that I was not againstbenefits for immigrants)As for PaulK, I was extremely bothered that he claimed I was calling the Democratic party an "open border" party, but his racist charge was not something that I cared too much about.It was the ridiculous inability to engage with my actual opinion and then to distinguish between the opinion comments, in my posts, and the factual comments, which caused me to reference the racial accusations.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I dont think I ever said anything about current immigrants, under our current system, paying a tax for whatever benefits they get.So I feel your "still" remark is another dishonest tactic.On the note about your general tactics, I must ask the following:I was wondering if you would ever admit that my 2014 Huffington Post article link counted as evidence that I had a 2014 source showing Hillary Clinton said children will be deported? You claimed that I only had a late 2016 source.Our March, 2019, exchange started when you denied that I told the truth when I stated that Hillary Clinton claimed, to Jorge Ramos,she would not deport children. (I was extremely skeptical that she was going to keep her promise, and I doubted that the Democratic party, at large, would protect children to anywhere near that extent)You kept saying that she was just talking about "due process".But Ramos kept pressing about the issue of protecting children from deportation, ultimately; He specifically asked her about the protection beyond her weasly "due process" hiding place. I quoted you the text, while you asked me for video of the exchange.Miriam Valverde, January 2, 2019, of Politifact had an article, "Did Hillary Clinton in 2014 say migrant children should be sent back to their countries?"It was just 1 month before our exchange.You kept using strawman twisting tactics when I raised the issue of Democrats detaining and deporting children migrants caught at the border. You happily "responded" to points you knew I was not making. I factually pointed out that Trump differed from the Obama/Clinton policy only in separation of children from parents, but not in the detention & deportation aspect. Your strawman responses came, full of your dishonest evasions and claims.(And you never want to address the real cause of the illegal immigration you like to oppose: the near impossibility of prospective immigrants having any real chance to immigrate here, due to the outdated & inhumane LEGAL immigration system - the very issue I constantly raise, and the very reason you viciously & dishonestly attack me)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

You only want a wall to solve this (to you) terrible problem if there is no river with technology.I suppose you support Biden in his demand that Mexico places a rock-solid hard border between it and Guatemala.Again, you said this recently.(I admit that you have been consistently obsessed with making it almost impossible for immigrants to get across the southern border, so they can enjoy your "due process" platitude - itself a severe watering down of the 2016 Democratic candidate's opposition to deportation of children)All of this was your position in this very thread. It was your updated position against immigrant's efforts to come here and to stay. It is a problem to you that "needs" a solution. Get tough is your solution.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

About 1 million deportations, under Title 42, took place in the last year. These deportations deny asylum seekers, who made it to the USA, a hearing, prior to removal from the country.The decision to stop the Title 42 deportations was September 16.Biden appealed the ruling.

48% of Texas voters said they supported "permanent legal status" for minors brought to the U.S. as children30% opposed.(Same poll in September showed 51% support)My phone cant access PDFs so I am not sure if this poll question is about the children who migrate alone, or children brought by parents, specifically.(SEE Diane Solis, Dallas Morning News, November 22, 2021, & NOVEMBER 23 POLITICO articles)The Border Wall seems to hover between 48% (September) and 50% (November) support, in this polling series.Quinnipiac just released a separate poll, in December 2021, showing results from questions of Texas voters, that shows 45% oppose the wall, while 51% support.So my anti-wall stand is somewhat in-line with (about) half of Texas voters.My open-border policy for children might be solidly supported, in 2022, but it might be more complicated. I feel vindicated by my strong support, not just for open borders, but by my insistence that the general public could actually support the policy for children.Democrats need to stop playing games with the lives of children, and support genuine rights.(And oppose the damn wall, for God's sake!)
(Texas, almost, opposes the wall)

It is getting tough to find any evidence that Americans might be o.k. with higher immigration levels.I just read an article, which referenced parts of a recent poll. So it is second hand, from the start.I will need to look at the actual poll I will reference.But the ironic thing is that the article was actually written to be evidence that anti-immigration policies are strongly supported by Texans.The article was an opinion piece written for The Hill. The Mark P. Jones article was Hispanic Support For Republican Hardline Immigration Policies May Keep Texas Red.Before I begin, I should point out that the Democratic party does not seem to support yearly increases in immigration levels, so don't blame me for the article's comments on politics positions. Dont blame me for any partisan implications. I am not going to quote the article, anyway. I only reference the article because this happens to be the article that made me aware of this poll:A late-October 2021 Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation poll of Texas registered voters. 1402 Texas voters were polled, of which 616 were Hispanics.(The ironic thing is that I probably did read the poll before, but I suppose that means I forgot about it, right?)Jones was happy to show that the poll showed 39% of Texas Hispanics oppose increasing the number of immigrants, from Mecico & Central America, allowed into the United States, while 35% supported.Jones was also happy that 59% of non-Hispanic white Texans opposed the poll's hypothetical increases, while 25% supported duch a change.I was thinking that this is evidence that less than half of Texans oppose increases in immigration level increases, which would be a mind-blowing collective position for the nation's second largest state - and a very conservative one at that!Now, Hispanics and non Hispanic whites are both about 40% of the population of Texas, so it is fair to say that these 80% of Texans have a combined opposition, to immigration-level increases, that amounts to 49% between the two. Granted, only 30%, between the two groups, support the increases.This is evidence that the opponents of increases, in Texas anyway, are much weaker than we have been left to believe.(Support for increases in the number of refugees & asylum seekers allowed into the United States was opposed by 42% of Texas Hispanics and 59% of Texas whites. Still only about 50% opposition. 35% of Texas Hispanics supported increases as did 27% of Anglos.)I feel like the pro-immigration sentiment would be much stronger if Democrats actually WERE pro-immigration, so people could hear arguments from both "sides" of an immigration debate. Just imagine how different the poll results would (always) be if Democrats were one-tenth as pro-immigration as they are pro-choice (aka. abortion obsession).Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.