California Poll

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The latest telephone poll taken by the California Governor's office asked whether people who live in California think illegal immigration is a serious problem:

29% responded, "Yes, it is a serious problem."

71% responded, "No es una problema seriosa."

:hangman:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I should follow your lead & ignore it once it's a hour old because, golly gee-willikers, speaking up is so pointlessless & silly, and, although it says We the People, you the infomed know that's nothing more than an old & outdated phrase?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
wow. who knew my housekeeper had the power to oppress grumpy middle-aged guys 2000 miles away?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Here's your linky, Spike.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0531-poll-20100531,0,2953408.story

LOS ANGELES TIMES/USC POLL
Californians split on Arizona's illegal immigration crackdown
Of the voters surveyed, 50% support Arizona's law and 43% oppose it; there were sharp divides along lines of ethnicity and age. And since the BP spill, support for new oil drilling has diminished.

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times

May 31, 2010

California voters are closely divided over the crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona, with sharp splits along lines of ethnicity and age, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll.

FOR THE RECORD:
Los Angeles Times/USC poll: An article in Monday's Section A about California voters' opinions on Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law did not fully describe the measure. The article said the law compels police to determine the status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The law applies only to people whom police have stopped for another reason. —



Overall, 50% of registered voters surveyed said they support the law, which compels police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, while 43% oppose it. That level of support is lower than polls have indicated nationwide.

But attitudes among the state's voters are not uniform. Strong majorities of white voters and those over 50 support the Arizona law, while Latinos and those under 30 are heavily opposed.

Arizona's adoption of the law in April stirred passions and protests across the nation, with cities including Los Angeles voting to boycott the state. The matter has turned into a pressure point in electoral battles, including the Republican gubernatorial primary in California. But the poll shows that most voters, even those with ardent feelings about the measure, said they were unlikely to reject candidates based solely on their immigration stances.

Those who oppose the law were more likely to say they would only support a candidate who agreed with them on that issue, with 1 in 3 making the Arizona law a litmus test for their vote. Supporters of the Arizona law were more likely to say they were voting on other issues.

Gina Bonecutter, 39, a Republican and fervent supporter of the Arizona measure, said she was frustrated by what she sees as unwillingness by recent immigrants to acclimate to American culture. The Laguna Hills mother and part-time educational therapist said large numbers of illegal immigrants are hurting public schools, one of the reasons she placed her four children in private school.

"What I'm seeing today is immigrants coming here, wanting us to become like Mexico, instead of wanting to become American," she said. "That's never going to work."

But in the GOP primary, Bonecutter is supporting Meg Whitman, who opposes the Arizona law, instead of Steve Poizner, who supports it. Poizner has made his support of the law a defining issue in the race, but among his supporters only 9% said they chose the candidate because of his immigration stance.

With the state's finances in dire straits, Bonecutter said Whitman's business background is more important.

On the other side of the issue, Daisy Vidal, 23, of Banning said Arizona's law will lead to racial profiling and she would never vote for a politician who supported it. A registered Democrat, Vidal is a first-generation American, born after her family immigrated to the United States legally in the mid-1980s.

"There should be some type of pathway to citizenship," said the Cal State San Bernardino student. "This whole country was started by immigrants."

The survey of 1,506 registered voters was conducted between May 19 and 26 for The Times and the University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts and Sciences by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for the overall sample and slightly larger for smaller breakdowns.

The survey also showed a notable shift in how California voters view offshore oil drilling. The BP oil spill that has sent millions of gallons of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico dominated headlines during the polling period, and voters by a 48%-to-41% ratio said they opposed new drilling off the coast.

That marks a reversal from recent years, when California voters reeling from rising gasoline prices had favored new drilling. The opposition marks a return to Californians' long-standing position, which dates back to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that etched images of dead birds and fouled beaches into residents' collective memories.

Bernard West, 74, a registered Republican, said the catastrophe in the Gulf, where the government and BP have been unable to stop the deep-water oil spill for more than a month, shows what's at stake.

"If we had a similar situation here, it would be devastating," said the retired accountant from Petaluma, north of San Francisco.

Geography played a role in voters' attitudes toward drilling. A majority of those who, like West, live in counties near the coast opposed new drilling, while 52% of those who live in inland counties supported it.

David Russell, a registered Democrat from West Point, about 60 miles east of Sacramento, said increasing domestic oil production is vital to the nation's security.

"The less that we buy oil from foreign countries and depend upon them, the better off we are," said the 64-year-old retired engineer.

One subject that voters overwhelmingly agreed upon, across party, race, age and geography, was their support for the open-primary measure on the June ballot. If Proposition 14 is approved, candidates from all parties would run during a primary open to all registered voters, and the top two vote-getters would battle it out in the general election.

A similar measure was approved by the state's voters several years ago but was struck down in court. This time, the measure has been tailored to meet legal objections. The state's major political parties are against the measure, but unlike previous times the idea has been up for a vote, they have not spent significant funds opposing it.

About 52% of voters support the measure, while 28% oppose it. Support is particularly high among voters who declined to align with a political party, such as Cheryl Santos, a 47-year-old market researcher from Los Altos in Santa Clara County.

The current system results in extremists winning party nominations and leads to a "paralyzing" partisanship in Sacramento, Santos said. That partisanship has led to the state's inability to deal with its fiscal crises, she added.

"Both sides are just digging in. No one compromises on anything anymore," she said. "It will help make the candidates more moderate."

Those who oppose Proposition 14 note that the current primary system ensures that each party is represented in the general election. If Proposition 14 passes, the Democrats' voting edge in California would mean that other parties will lose their voice, said Roberta Houston of San Diego.

"We'd have two Democrats running against each other," said the 70-year-old Republican and retired teacher. "It's absolutely ridiculous."

[email protected]

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
If you haven't asked her for her papers, that means you haven't verified her eligibility to work in the US (a law for employers) or, I presume, gotten her SSA information so she can pay taxes, medicare & social security. I hope you don't plan on running for office.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
"Get off my lawn!"

'Oh wait...yer a beaner, aintcha? Git back on that lawn, boy and start mowin' fo I call the migri on ya! "
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Illegal immigration IS a problem. There is no way to track it, tax it, or regulate it. Illegal immigrants use our infrastructure and only some of them pay taxes into the system (illegally with Social Security numbers not their own and legally through purchases).

There is an answer but no one seems to want to listen: Temporary Worker Visa.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
There is an answer but no one seems to want to listen: Temporary Worker Visa.

Great.

First, how do we handle the estimated 20,000,000 illegals already here?

Second, how do you propose getting our federal government to investigate those applying for temp visas quickly enough?

My answer to the first is, arrest, fingerprint & deport all of the illegalds here, giving them no option to return. We don't need to set up another Untouchables unit. Just deport them as we come acrosss them. Of course, if they leave voluntarily, they may then apply for your suggested temp visa.
 
Top