Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
125 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 121 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,139 Year: 4,785/14,102 Month: 383/707 Week: 114/197 Day: 3/55 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   CATO Institute had a big IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL IDENTITY survey, April 27, 2021
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 129 (888108)
09-03-2021 11:19 PM


This survey might have asked the most good questions about immigration related views that I have ever seen.

The enormous amount of detailed questions were matched by incredibly well-designed groupings of the polled people. (People were not only grouped by race, generation, and political party affiliation , but by very nuanced ideological identification)

I don't know where to begin but I might limit my observation to a question that was asked near the end of the survey:

(I forget the exact wording)

Do you think more of yourself as a global citizen than an American citizen?

Yes 26%

No 48%

Unsure 26%

Honestly, I would not know where to begin, and where to end, but I will leave it there.

(Overall, the other questions seem to get nationalistic responses from the collective body of Americans, but this question produced a surprisingly cosmopolitan strain among the American public)

(The answers to questions were super greedy also. Not just by Republicans but also by Democrats, as well)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 09-04-2021 12:26 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12722
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 129 (888118)
09-04-2021 12:13 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20219
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 3 of 129 (888119)
09-04-2021 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
09-03-2021 11:19 PM


Rephrasing:

LamarkNewAge writes:

Do you think of yourself more as a citizen of the world or of your nation?

It's a complicated equation that defies solution on many issues, but everyone should want what is best for the most people, regardless of nationality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-03-2021 11:19 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-05-2021 11:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 4 of 129 (888137)
09-05-2021 11:04 PM


This poll took notice of the crucial public opinion indicator in decade long polling
The polling outfit here was the libertarian CATO institute (conservative, but in the Ron & Rand Paul tradition, and very much attacked by Trump & Bannon for open-border leanings) , but the group has CV clearly paid special attention to 46 years running poll (run every few years or so), by Gallup, which asked respondents whether they support higher overall immigration levels, lower levels, or the same. Until around 15+ years ago, the public always supported lower levels over higher & the same levels combined. Then, around 2006, the combination of support for higher levels & the same levels outnumbered the large mass of Americans who wanted lower levels.

(The long running Gallop poll made no distinction between legal and illegal immigration in poll)

Support for higher immigration levels was always under 20% until 2010. Mainly because of increased Democratic support, the support for higher immigration levels reached 34% and 33% in the 2 most recent Gallop polls.

The CATO Institute has started running a periodic poll that asks the same 3 questions. This 2021 poll saw 29% support for the increased levels when the standard question w/ answer options is fielded.

But CATO asked a whole lot more questions, and it was meant to understand what kind of thinking was behind the answers to the old indicator questions in the old polling format.

CATO grouped the 3 answer groups into immigration Expanders, immigration Maintainers, and immigration Restrictionists. About 50 (or more) questions were asked, and the answers from the 3 respective camps were clearly watched, as were the answers from Democrats, Republicans, 1st generation immigrants, 2nd generation immigrants, 3rd generation immigrants, regular post 3rd generation Americans (the majority of us), 18-44 year olds, 45-54, 55+, and more.

(The more includes conservative, moderates, liberals, strong conservatives , strong liberals).

This was the best immigration poll I have ever seen.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 5 of 129 (888138)
09-05-2021 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
09-04-2021 12:26 PM


E Pluribis Unim
Your post reminds me that the title to an analysis article, on the CATO Institute site, was titled E Pluribis Unim: findings from the CATO Institute 2021 Immigration and National Identity survey, April 27. 2021, by Emily Enkins and David Kemp.

I cant get a direct web address to show up on my web browser.

CATO stepped away from strict polling questions to ask the 2600 polled Americans why they held such views on immigration levels and such. The Restrictionists were paid ( special) attention to. There were parts of the poll where numbers were not presented, just groups that had a general response when they got to respond with views in their own words . The polling director grouped the answers into a general paragraph but it did not use percentage of support for such views, as it was just an editorial/directorial survey without scientific polling techniques employed. No hard numbers, just editorial observations that were never the less based on questions & answers with the participants in the big scientific poll.

We got a chance to understand the logic behind the Restrictionists and others.

The analysis also includes most of the polls, in the big 2021 study, but with commentary to flesh it all out.

Everyone must read the Emily Ekins and David Kemp findings. Emily Enkins was the director of the actual poll.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 09-04-2021 12:26 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 6 of 129 (888157)
09-06-2021 10:52 PM


The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
The public will agree to support much higher immigration levels IF immigrants can prove they will not use social support programs.

The April 27 analysis offered links to studies that have endlessly demonstrated the inverse relationship rule. Just before offering an assortment of questions that the respondents answered.

I have been begging for the Democrats and the pro immigration side to get around the immigration-stopper "public charge" issue by having an immigration tax (5% specifically) to be applied on all future immigrants.

It is necessary if we want to have the much needed increase in immigration levels PLUS the ability for immigrants to ALSO be able to get government services. (The American people have been shown to consider the entire immigrant household as a drain on society, and this poll shows that the public, in essence, considers 2nd generation Americans to be under the microscope for being guilty of a "public charge" offence)

The Democrats should be able to figure out the best solution to the "public charge" accusation that has menaced our efforts to increase immigration levels.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2021 11:47 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 09-08-2021 10:38 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 7 of 129 (888160)
09-07-2021 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
09-06-2021 10:52 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
The public will agree to support much higher immigration levels IF immigrants can prove they will not use social support programs.

OK, so just exactly what social support programs do they use?

Getting medical care through hospital ERs? Thanks to our fouled up health care system in which most citizens cannot afford health care, that's what many citizens have to rely on.

Can you think of anything else? I cannot.

So do immigrants pay any taxes? We went over this before regarding undocumented (AKA "illegal") aliens. They do pay taxes without qualifying for benefits. By paying rent, they are indirectly paying their landlords' property taxes. By buying stuff, they are directly paying sales taxes and if they are driving then they are paying gasoline taxes (AKA "consumption taxes"). One dodge (used even by Trump businesses in their human trafficking practices) is to get fake Social Security numbers, so in those cases they are paying into payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) which they can never collect on (nor can legal aliens with valid work visas) as well as having income tax withholding taken out which they can never try to recover by filing a tax return.

I have been begging for the Democrats and the pro immigration side to get around the immigration-stopper "public charge" issue by having an immigration tax (5% specifically) to be applied on all future immigrants.

Why? They are already paying all kinds of taxes as it is! Plus the administration of your proposed extra tax would not work for undocumented immigrants.

What we need to do is to analyze and point out how much all immigrants are already paying into the system through taxes. As well as showing how immigrants provide the basic labor that our economy absolutely depends on. The A-TEAM (1964) definitively demonstrated that there are indeed jobs that citizens refuse to do but hard-working immigrants (is there any other kind?) will gladly do.

 
So what we actually need to do is to inform the public of the actual facts about immigration. Not the lies that the xenophobic right-wingnuts keep feeding the public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-06-2021 10:52 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 9:19 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 129 (888164)
09-08-2021 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by dwise1
09-07-2021 11:47 AM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
I am confused beyond belief at your post.

Where to begin?

The emergency room is about 30-100 times more expensive than an "urgent care" center. The fees are much smaller but you have to pay upfront. A single emergency room visit will cost anywhere from $5000, minimum, to $50,000 if you stay almostc24 hours. The hospitals will sell unpaid debt, in 3 to 6 months, to bill collections. I know many people who make less than $15,000 a year, and get 25% taken from their check.

People only use the emergency room because it is the only way to see a doctor (minus 2 months notice).

On the immigration tax issue, I am truly clueless as to how you can say that the government has no way to tax illegal immigrants. Dont about a quarter of them own homes in the USA? They can pay property taxes, soothe government can raise the tax there if some dont work. One third own businesses, and most work.

I did not assume that every last single illegal immigrant worked and had assets, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2021 11:47 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 09-08-2021 10:44 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 129 (888165)
09-08-2021 9:38 AM


Let me put a plug in for, of all places, Alabama.
The federal law is that a poor person can not have the first $217 a week taken from their paycheck, but the next $70 (roughly) will be taken, from a check, by bill collections.After the first $300 earned, It will then be a non complicated %25 per dollar earned.

I have worked with people who only want to make $220 a week, because most of the next $180-200 made will go to bill collections. All of dollar $218 to $292 will be taken. 100% taken.

Most states follow the federal minimum protections and dont add any more.

Alabama protects workers from paycheck garnishment.

(The racial situation will immediately come to mind when Alabama is brought up, but I have been told by several black people that Alabama isn't as bad as people think. South Carolina is actually much worse)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20219
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 10 of 129 (888166)
09-08-2021 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
09-06-2021 10:52 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
LamarkNewAge writes:

The public will agree to support much higher immigration levels IF immigrants can prove they will not use social support programs.
...
<and all the rest of the malarkey>

Do you really want to make your prejudices and ignorance this self-evident?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-06-2021 10:52 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 2:35 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20219
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 11 of 129 (888167)
09-08-2021 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 9:19 AM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
I await with interest to see if dwise1 will figure out a way to respond to someone who apparently understood almost nothing he said.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 9:19 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 2:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 12 of 129 (888168)
09-08-2021 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
09-08-2021 10:38 AM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
Did you go to the polling page I sent you to?

More Republicans than Democrats support higher immigration levels if the public charge issue is addressed.

(This is nothing new btw)

(But a new poll, regardless)

Hispanics are the largest group that supports such a policy.

( you dont understand that complex polling involved)

(I am against public charge regulations but it is ALREADY written into the law when you get married to a non citizen in, say, Mexico, plus is is part of the largest immigration group - sponsored family members)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 09-08-2021 10:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-08-2021 3:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2021 5:28 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 09-09-2021 3:27 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 13 of 129 (888169)
09-08-2021 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
09-08-2021 10:44 AM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
dwise did not read the polling page.

The issue is ALL immigrants. He is trying to make this an issue of illegal immigration, for starters.

The pollingvquestions made no distinction when it came to what I was talking about


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 09-08-2021 10:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 14 of 129 (888170)
09-08-2021 2:46 PM


Clarification:
CATO had done studies that show 1st generation immigrants do not cost taxpayers money.

But the page I keep recommending that people read ADMITTED that their 2nd generation American children do add to taxpayer costs, and the fact is that Americans consider the whole household as "immigrants".

(CATO considers the costs are no cost to taxpayers by the 3rd generation, infact a large net profit to the country

That is how I understood it.

The real issue is American voter perception though.


  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19226
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 15 of 129 (888171)
09-08-2021 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 2:35 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
LamarkNewAge writes:

More Republicans than Democrats support higher immigration levels if the public charge issue is addressed.


Sounds like a cop-out. "Sure, I'd support abolishing slavery IF there were jobs for the freed slaves."

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 2:35 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 5:47 PM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021