Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
45 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,104 Year: 4,216/6,534 Month: 430/900 Week: 136/150 Day: 6/23 Hour: 0/3


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 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1 of 137 (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 replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4 of 137 (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 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 5 of 137 (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 seen this message

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 6 of 137 (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 replied
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 09-08-2021 10:38 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 8 of 137 (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 taken no action

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

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 9 of 137 (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.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 12 of 137 (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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-08-2021 3:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2021 5:28 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 09-09-2021 3:27 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 13 of 137 (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 seen this message

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 14 of 137 (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.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 137 (888173)
09-08-2021 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
09-08-2021 3:20 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
1st and second generation immigrants are the strongest supporters of what you just bashed.

I have been at work all day, while posting, and I could not spend too much time on the straw man b.s. from dwise and Percy.

They are ignorant amateurs on the immigration issue, and they have no clue about how to get past the multi-decade one million immigrant limit per year. I have read the polls for ages and I understand the glacial-speed tar pit craw that has to be dealt with.

Straw man crap aside (the dishonest "response" to my supposed views), dwise foes not understand that illegal immigrants are not the issue. To the extent that Percy and dwise understand that Americans have complaints about overall immigration level, then they can understand that the case can be made that all first generation Americans pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. It is the benefits available to second generation children that cause problems with public opinion.

CATO plays up the net benefits 2nd generation immigrants bring, net "public charge" micro (economic) issues aside, but admits there is a major p.r. problem and the frustration with the pro immigration side begs for a solution.

I am in favor of an immigration tax (1st gen Americans starting sometime in the future).

I oppose barring immigrants from public social program benefits, but most 1st gen immigrants are already subject to such restrictions. I oppose the restrictions already on the books, but for Percy & dwise, it is enough for them to just be aware of the status quo. I bet they had no clue about the law, in addition to the public policy/ public opinion rut.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-08-2021 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 09-09-2021 11:56 AM LamarkNewAge has taken no action
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-09-2021 3:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 18 of 137 (888174)
09-08-2021 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AZPaul3
09-08-2021 5:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
I have no problem with immigrants getting public services.

I oppose requiring sponsors of relatives to sign off on paying the bill if their sponsored relative uses public programs.

(Most immigrants ARE effectively barred from public services, NOW)

Why dont you Google "public charge".

First generation immigrants support higher immigration levels and barring immigrants from public social programs. They are the biggest supporters of such.

You are ignorant of the law.

You are ignorant of public opinion.

I was not even expressing my opinion. I was describing objective facts about both current law and public opinion.

Idiots


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2021 5:28 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 137 (888175)
09-08-2021 5:57 PM


It is ignorant amateur hour, so readers of this thread beware.
Be very careful about reading the posts in this thread.

These idiots have never heard of the PUBLIC CHARGE laws already on the books.

I can easily tell.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 21 of 137 (888177)
09-08-2021 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
09-08-2021 8:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
To YOUR credit you did not make the disgracefully pathetic accusations, like Percy and Arizona's Finest did. Their accusations are easily seen as false; so easy that I should continue to ignore the most offensive part.

What I should not drop is a challenge, starting with the Arizona one, which demands a sentence by sentence examination of my post 12. The challenge should be for his sweet self to tell us which line, in my post 12, is a factual statement, free of opinion, and which was an actual opinion.

My response to your post 20 is:

to point out that I had nothing to do with your past immigration discussions here.

Illegal immigrants are less than 25% of 1st generation immigrants.

(I have no idea if they want to remain here long enough to become Americans, but we have about 46-47 million immigrants residing, and 10 to 11 million illegals residing)

Only 10% use fake social security numbers ( I had to look that one up. I assumed the number was more like 1% of illegal immigrants that use fake SSNs)

That means around 2% of first generation Americans use fake SSNs. (Looks, to me, like you used an anti immigration tactic!)

Stop blowing up the proportion of immigrants who use fake SSNs.

(Are you some kind of racist right winger? Those prejudices are just awful.)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 137 (888178)
09-08-2021 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
09-08-2021 8:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
(Post 21 ended with a joke, incase nobody saw the irony)

My immigration tax is something 1st generation immigrants would want.

Only 30% of Americans support allowing future immigrants to buy their right to live and work here.

($10,000 was the amount. CATO said that the poll numbers did not change when the amount was raised to $50,000)

But 46% of first generation Americans support it.

They support it because they do not want to see future immigration-seekers loose opportunities to come here.

(Think of how every immigrant we ALL have known is scared to death to say anything critical of the United States. It is a fear that the angry American public will react with a reduction in future immigration. This CATO poll shows that a slight majority of Americans would deport any immigrant that calls the United States a racist country. 42% of Democrats support deportation for immigrants calling the USA racist)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 137 (888179)
09-08-2021 10:29 PM


My "second generation immigrants" should read second generation Americans.
I did not notice that stupid mistake. As we all know, every person born here (per 1886 Supreme Court) is a citizen. I hope I did not confuse anybody by my glitch.

(I only noticed my own mistake when I just re-read dwise's post 20. I am the one responsible for his confusion. I am guilty of some crappy word choices.

(CATO shows us that about 60% of Americans want to keep birth right citizenship, but 60% of Republicans want to strip citizenship from the 2and generation Americans)

(Editing NOTE. Cato used the term "second generation immigrants" in polling categories, but explained the idiosyncrasy at the beginning. That is where I got the screwed up term)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022