My home State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is as blue a state as they come. Our entire congressional delegation is Democratic and Democrats control the state legistature. Democrats outnumber Republicans by 37%, the highest gap in any state (only the District of Columbia has a larger gap).
I have written before about how Rhode Island’s new Independent line Governor, Linc Chalfee, not only has revoked a prior Executive Order that state vendors utilize the E-verify program, but also has been trying to stymie other cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The presumption that a true blue state like Rhode Island would be against immigration enforcement is contradicted by a Brown University poll, misleadingly released under the headline “Rhode Islanders deeply divided on immigrants and immigration policy.”
In fact, there is no deep divide; the poll shows strong majority support for an Arizona-style law. Here is the question and answer breakdown in the Brown poll:
“Are you aware of the illegal immigration law that was recently passed in Arizona? a) Yes, 71%; b) No, 29%.
How much do you support or oppose the approach that Arizona is taking on immigration? a) strongly support, 32%; b) somewhat support, 22%; c) neither support nor oppose, 10%; d) somewhat oppose, 14%; e) strongly oppose, 23%.”
So 54% strongly or somewhat support an Arizona-style law, while only 37% strongly or somewhat oppose such a law, and Brown spins that as the public being “deeply divided”?
In fact, the depth of that support is evidenced by the fact that Rhode Islanders are willing to increase taxes for enforcement:
“If the Arizona law were enacted in our state, how much would you support or oppose a tax increase to pay for additional police to enforce immigration law? a) strongly support/somewhat support, 54%; b) neither support nor oppose, 10%, c) somewhat oppose/ strongly oppose, 36%.”
The Providence Journal picked up on the spin, with an article headlined “Brown poll shows divide on immigration issues in RI.”
The conventnional wisdom is that a strong immigration policy is a losing proposition for Republicans. Really? Tell that to Democratic Rhode Island.
——————————————-
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
"The conventnional wisdom is that a strong immigration policy is a losing proposition for Republicans."
I'm an example of a person who was formerly a registered Repub but changed due to the Repub immigration policy: it is too weak. At a time when so many Americans are out of work the last thing we need is to be enablers of exploitative employers. And to force citizens to provide social safety nets for illegals.
Our nation basically needs two things to regain our "mojo"…..
1) Produce domestic energy – oil, natural gas, coal and build nuclear power plants.
2) Reduce all forms of immigration significantly for 10-20 years. Mass immigration (legal and illegal) are both forms of BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERALISM. We can not take in half of Mexico and half of China, half of India, half of Russia, half of _____. From 1925-1965, we had low immigration. Today, with our poor economy, high unemployment and lack of assimilation, we need to return to a lower level of immigration.
Any Dems or Repubs advance this case?
None. Therefore, the prospects for our country are dim.
Is illegal immigration a big problem in Rhode Island? That surprises me.
I don't want our country to be demanding people's papers. That would be far worse than having to produce a U-Bahn ticket.
But the situation is out of control. Most California Democrats agree. It's bankrupted the state (or contributed a lot to this), and now(no fault of the thousands of families who immigrate), there are drug lords growing pot in California's national parks. Unbelievable.
Laurie – American citizens, I presume you, like me are) have to "produce papers" every time we get stopped by the police in our car, everytime we apply for a job, everytime we rent a frickin movie, but you are so worried about the "precious" immigrants??
We already admit more LEGAL immigrants each year than all other nations in the world combined, each and every year. When is enough, enough?
We don't produce enough jobs anymore because we are practicing a form of statism/socialism, with a massive, instrusive government, which crowds out industry and enterprise.
We have too many people; not enough jobs.
Nessus- I don't disagree. We do need jobs, and we do have to identify ourselves– but not based on race. I just think it will be very hard on American citizens who are brown. And I do think they are important.
I DON'T think it's out reponsibility to take on the problems of Mexico. Mexican's need to fix Mexico. But the reason we don't have jobs is NOT intrusive Govt. On the contrary, the Govt. sold us out to coporate interests for lower costs and the idea that democracy will rise up where infrastructure was developed by foreign capital.
SO what does this mean? Last I checked about 550 American factories right over the border. They paid $15 a day 10 years ago. Maybe it's 20 or 30 now. Many have moved to China because it's cheaper. You want to make 20-30 a day?
You fault the Govt for this? I think NAFTA was a bill of goods, but the GOP was behind it– just like that conservative Democrat Clinton.
What law or proposed law is enforced on the basis of race? I'm unaware of any.
Secondly, while I never was a big fan of NAFTA, as a liberal, you must realize that a big reason for such trade deals is to "spread the wealth around" to less prosperous nations.
Furthermore, I am not in favor of govt telling business what it can and can't do, as far as what to produce and where to produce it. It would be better for us to lower corportate tax rates, abolish unnecessary regulations and offer other incentives to industry to stay or locate in our states/our nation.
What law or proposed law is enforced on the basis of race? I'm unaware of any.
Secondly, while I never was a big fan of NAFTA, as a liberal, you must realize that a big reason for such trade deals is to "spread the wealth around" to less prosperous nations.
Furthermore, I am not in favor of govt telling business what it can and can't do, as far as what to produce and where to produce it. It would be better for us to lower corportate tax rates, abolish unnecessary regulations and offer other incentives to industry to stay or locate in our states/our nation.
1) A law that requires policemen to request identifuaction from anyone that might be illegal will be enforced against hispanic citizens, not white people like me.
2) I understood NAFTA as a backdoor immigration measure (that has failed). If you have a 2000 mile border with an undeveloped country, they'll come North. That has been (part) of our undoing. I voted for Gephart once-upon-a-time because he opposed it. It hasn't been good for Mexicans either. Goods– increasingly for export– are priced by the American market and their wages are 1/10th of Americans– of that.
There's a lot to be sid about that, but I have to go. more later.
OK. So 29% of the sample said that they were not aware of the Arizona law. But when asked whether or not they supported or opposed it, only 10% of the same sample declined to comment.
This means that 19% of those who claimed to have no knowledge of the Arizona law did not let their ignorance of it prevent them from giving their opinion of it.
But then what would you expect from a poll anyway?
Mark