A new AP-Ipsos poll has found that 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a chance to attain some sort of legal status to remain in the United States. The survey of 1,003 adults was conducted between March 28 and 30 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
A majority of both Democrats (62%) and Republicans (52%) support temporary worker status. Approximately two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 34, as well as an equal share of college-educated Americans, have voiced the strongest support for the idea of offering illegal immigrants a chance to attain some kind of legal status.
The poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that undocumented workers are filling jobs that most Americans don't want. However, only 51 percent of those surveyed said they believe these workers make a contribution to society and 42 percent said that illegal immigrants are a burden.
The survey also found stark divisions with regard to how serious a crime it should be to enter the country illegally. Fifty-one percent thought it should be considered a "minor offense" and 47 percent considered it a "serious criminal offense."
Two-thirds of Americans expressed doubt that a fence along our border with Mexico would reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
Legislation that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. without proper immigration papers has already been approved in the House. The Senate, however, is currently considering legislation that would give the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. a chance at citizenship.
The Other "G" Word
Between the immigration and globalization controversies, there are plenty of oppugnant forces, opinions and oxymorons — some informed, some based upon propagandistic stereotypes, arbitrary provincialism and other anachronisms, and some born of a wide variety of manifestations of psychological projection — but no definitive ideas other than the usual suggestions of futile punitive measures commingled with the relentless cries of those who wish to preserve the status quo as a means of supporting capitalism — or human rights.
Republicans and conservative Democrats are sharply divided between a "law and order" mentality and strong support for business and industry. Authoritarians who oppose the idea of "rewarding" people who break the law to enter the country are taking a "get tough" stance with regard to illegal immigrants, but they are in conflict with their pragmatic capitalist bedfellows whose business interests want access to a cheap labor force of undocumented workers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Victor Plenty
Many thanks to you for writing this piece. It's refreshing to finally see a balanced and rational discussion of globalization and what it will really mean.
Now let's see just how far into the comments section the calm and rational qualities of this discussion can survive.
2 - Howard Dratch
Balanced, rational and prophetic, Victor. But, if we hope for
Regardless of denials and protestations, it is inevitable that this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy. The notion of "borders" is becoming obsolete and will someday be regarded as ridiculous as the idea of categorizing and judging people by the color of their skins.Then, what will the bigots, xenophobes, isolationists and racists have to talk about?
3 - Victor Plenty
The future is a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom. No bigots or racists will prove capable of preventing this, whether they are Islamic fundamentalists who have tragically forgotten the true spiritual message of the Qur'an, or right-wing Americans who have forgotten the principles at the core of their own country's founding documents. The only uncertainty is how long the civilized humans will wait before finally establishing this morally imperative worldwide system of governance.
The bigots and the xenophobes will continue to talk about the same things they talk about in the smaller contexts of the nation-states and national-level governments that currently exist, Howard. Ever since the founding of the United States, there have been a few vocal bigots who wanted to see some part or another of my home nation broken away to form their own separatist territory, limited to whites, or white slaveowners, or whatever. Thus far they have all failed to break apart the United States, despite trying a variety of tactics ranging from incoherent grumbling to all-out war.
The isolationists, and the other fossils left over from immature stages of human social evolution will continue to grumble, and some might continue to struggle using violence. They might even slow down the inevitable. But they cannot stop it.
4 - Dave Nalle
he future is a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom
Why does this sound so bland and depressing?
dave
5 - RedTard
"immature stages of human social evolution"
I suppose those immature stages are where people still believe in individual rights. It is very common for you lefties to dream of that socialist one world nanny government.
What is it that causes you guys to fantasize so much about absolute government power? Why do leftists always want to use the government to control those that they disagree with?
At the best your imagined world would be one depressing step above the one depicted in the matrix (instead of all powerful machines controlling humans 'for their own good' one all powerful government would be), at worst the absolute power would usher in absolute corruption. When the world's citizens are bent to one power and stripped of all means to fight back and the next Hitler or Stalin arises who will be there to save us?
6 - TLB
Unfortunately, in 2024, San Francisco will be turned into a massive refugee camp due to nuclear war. It'll only be 2078 before mankind finally wakes up and decides to allow a true world government. However, things only become interesting around the time of Star Trek: TNG. They've even got a holodeck!
BTW, the AP/Ipsos poll offers this question: "Would you favor or oppose allowing immigrants with jobs who are in the United States illegally to apply for legal, temporary worker status?"
Can anyone spot the fundamental problem with that question? Yes, that's right: because of various factors those workers would end up staying here. They would not be "temporary". There's a good possibility that the poll is a simple attempt to mislead.
7 - Margaret Romao Toigo
RedTard, I must ask how you derived your notions, as expressed in comment #5, from the context of Victor Plenty's comment #3?
When we get to the point in time when we have a one-world government, it will likely be too small an entity to tyrannize the people or oppress individual rights.
Besides, the worldwide free exchange of information and technology would make a "socialist one world nanny government" untenable, anyway.
8 - Victor Plenty
It's the game of unwarranted assumptions. Folks like Red and Dave assume a united world would have to be an oppressed world. Yet they have no trouble imagining a United States enjoying both unity and freedom, without any oppression being required to establish and maintain its unity. Even if they don't think that's the way things are right now in the United States.
Individual rights will never be secure anywhere on this planet until they are protected everywhere. That is the reality of the modern world. Mature human social evolution will involve recognizing this fact, and finally giving real protection to individual rights, rather than mere lip service. A worldwide government can and will uphold the rights of all its citizens. Today's divided governments have repeatedly proven incapable of doing so.
Perhaps there will always be those who find it "bland and depressing" to live in a world where peace, security, freedom, and prosperity have replaced the chaotic oppression of today's international anarchy. This is one of the many reasons I support a vigorous program of human space settlement, so people who can't stand the thought of a United Earth will always be free to leave if they wish.
9 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The bigots, xenophobes, isolationists and racists will always have plenty to talk about because just as our technology becomes more sophisticated, so will our prejudices -- and regardless of the extent of worldwide economic unity, we will likely always fight about our various religious beliefs.
Perhaps it is the fear of a loss of individuality that makes the idea of "a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom" seem so bland and depressing.
Or maybe it's just too hard to imagine without considering the cultural influence of numerous science fiction books, films and television programs that depict bland and/or depressing visions of the future.
10 - Christopher Rose
That sounds a little pessimistic to these ears Miss Margaret, I don't think there's much chance of us losing our individuality.
I am delighted to be able to move at will throughout the whole of Europe and, unfortunate language barriers aside, live and work wherever I want. Before the Union came together, I was confined to my island home and would have had a lot of difficulty just moving south as I have in search of better times and weather.
I don't see why a scaling up of that to a global or even interplanetary levelwould be anything other than even more pleasing to millions of people that would like to follow their own personal wandering stars.
Welcome back by the way; you bring a lot that's good to BC and I for one would like to see more of it. Of course, I could click on over to your own stylish blog and probably should but rarely have free time.
11 - Richard Brodie
Wasn't it Marx with his "dialectical materialism" who use to talk about how inevitable his own vision of the future was? And now we have Miss Marxaret coming along assuring us that:
Regardless of denials and protestations, it is inevitable that this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy. The notion of "borders" is becoming obsolete
Hmmm. No borders. That means no nations. Or rather just one nation, with one ruling elite exercising completely unchecked power over the population of the entire globe - a population of racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic clones, completely lacking in all of the wonderful diversity we now enjoy.
Imagine China, spread out to where it completely covers every square inch of all six continents, and you will have a good picture of the boring world that this ditz likes to rhapsodize about.
12 - Margaret Romao Toigo
No, there isn't much chance of us actually losing our individuality, but that doesn't necessarily allay fears of such a fate -- especially when popular culture, in its efforts to make statements about the troubles of the present, so often paints a very dark future for humanity.
In these times when we are just beginning to appreciate the strength of our diversity, the notion of "one world" seems rather ominous because it suggests cultural homogeneity rather than cultural plurality.
I see America and Europe's conglomerations of cultures as microcosms of humanity's future on Earth.
Of course, some assimilation is inevitable in a world in which information travels at the speed of light and cultural evolution is often driven by free markets, but the same forces that cause cultural absorption also create cultural hybrids.
13 - Richard Brodie
When we get to the point in time when we have a one-world government, it will likely be too small an entity to tyrannize the people or oppress individual rights.
Ah! The "withering away of the state". And in what manifesto have we heard THAT rhetoric before?
14 - gonzo marx
interesting and well written Article, as always...
i do have some personal difficulties with parts of the material being talked about here...
such as..
a) no problem with Immigrants...almost all of our Ancestors in the US were Immigrants...
b) BIG problem with illegal immigrants...they have broken the rule of Law, shoudl be made to answer for it and NOT be rewarded for their behavior
c)nailed perfectly that much of this is due to Big Business wanting very cheap, undocumented, uninsured, unregulated workers...this aids in keeping the market forces of Supply/Demand for Labor atrificially depressed...companies like that...the shrinking american middle class does not
these this sit at the nut of the problem, and i only can see one solution for the near term
fine the Businesses that hire illegal aliens the same as the FCC does for Janet Jackson's boobies...$500,000 per incident
this will stop the demand for illegals almost instantly and allow market forces to rebalance wage prices for Labor in a true capitalistic fashion...the tide of illegals will slow if not stop altogether since there will be no work...and folks can immigrate legally....
just like most of our Ancestors did
nuff said?
Excelsior!
15 - RedTard
"this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy."
I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption. My problem, like Mr. Brodie's, is that most people that espouse the idea seem to want to use that government to force everyone to conform to their views. That's putting the cart before the horse.
People should develop common values and beliefs based around freedom first. Peace and prosperity will follow, then people should agree on a very limited government system to referee their conflicts, not to use as a weapon against those they don't like.
I think it's foolish to go in reverse, create a world government and force an arbitrary belief system on everyone, cross your fingers and hope for prosperity, and then pray that you can control the moster you created.
16 - gonzo marx
well Red...does that count invading other countries and force feeding them "democracy" and then bitching when it doesn't turn out the way you want?
just curious
Excelsior!
17 - Nancy
Gonzo, have you noticed that no matter how hard anyone tries to emphasize that it isn't the "immigrant" part that's offensive & needs to be eliminated, it's the "illegal" part, those in opposition invariably ignore that extremely important adjective & qualifier? "Immigrant" does not automatically = "illegal", and "illegals" do not mean all immigrants. There's a MAJOR difference between them, namely respect for the law.
18 - RedTard
Yes, the desire to use government as a weapon to silence and control those that disagree with you is not exclusive to any one political viewpoint. It's that part of our nature that makes me cautious about putting all our eggs in one government basket. JuJu help us if we don't choose the right one.
19 - Nancy
I wouldn't want to be part of one world government, but I think that's moot, because first we'd have to decide which one that is, and as things stand now, we cut each other's throats over much more picayune things, so I don't think we need to worry about world government. Unless, of course, the multinational corporations set it up, which I can see, since they pretty much control everything (including congress & other major governments) now, i.e. you have enough money, you can do what you want.
20 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Brodie, my assertions with regard to the inevitability of humanity's future are based upon my study of anthropology, not politics.
Why do some people automatically assume that "one world with one people and one economy" means tyranny, oppression, diminished economic opportunity, and cultural and/or genetic homogeneity?
Imagine America, spread out to where it completely covers every square inch of all six continents, and you will have a good picture -- unless you're one of those pessimistic folks who would rather rhapsodize about some proposed apocalypse, which is, of course, far more amusing and popular than entertaining any sort of optimistic notions about our destiny.
21 - Nancy
I wouldn't want American spread out to every square inch of all 6 continents; I don't consider America to be the epitomy of good government. On the contrary, I consider the US government to have degenerated to a corrupt, faux democracy run by an elite class totally vested in an oligarchic plutocracy. Or a plutocratic oligarchy, your choice.
Most Americans are lazy, intellectually & physically. They can't even be bothered to vote ... altho the quality of the canadidates & parties offered may have a good deal to do with the increasing apathy, IMO. The kind of "freedoms" offered in America are fake freedoms of choice mainly pushed by various megacorporations like McDonalds: choice of junk food, choice of how to have your money finagled from you, choice of how to piss it away on nonessentials you don't need & never will, all because you've been indoctrinated from birth (in the US of course) by TV & all other media, to be the consummate Consumer. Do I want THIS duplicated from one corner of the earth to the other: endless consumerism, driven by endless marketing & sex advertising? Hell no.
22 - Richard Brodie
Miss Toigo says: my assertions with regard to the inevitability of humanity's future are based upon my study of anthropology, not politics.
and then, incredibly, goes on to say:
Why do some people automatically assume that "one world with one people and one economy" means tyranny, oppression, diminished economic opportunity, and cultural and/or genetic homogeneity?
I don't think you even realize how confused you are. You predict that there will be no "genetic homogeneity" but there will be one-world (no borders) government, immediately after asserting that your conclusions are based on anthropology, not politics!
Attempting to debate with this is like being at the carnival trying to whack the little gopher that keeps popping up at completely unpredictable places. You should be content with enjoying your private Alice in Wonderland world, and try to avoid entertaining the unhealthy delusion that it has, or will ever have, anything to do with reality.
23 - Tony
Nancy:
I would sooner live in a system which allows me the chice of whether or not I "need" those mindless consumer items than live under a system thoat would decide for me what I actually need and don't. As it is I can choose what I want and need. Noone has the right to decide that for me anymore than I have to right to make that decion for anyone else.
I don't work 50-60 hours a week to merely subsist on my needs alone. Life's pleasures, however you may define them, are why we get up every morning.
24 - Margaret Romao Toigo
As far as punitive measures go, fining businesses that employ illegal immigrants would likely be more profitable than jailing illegal immigrants.
There are 11 million undocumented workers working 11 million undocumented jobs. If it weren't for the jobs, the workers would not come here to fill them -- basic supply and demand.
So it should follow that businesses will wish to avoid fines and thus will cease hiring illegal aliens.
However, one needn't be an illegal immigrant to take undocumented work. Working alongside the illegal undocumented workers are legal aliens as well as American citizens, all of them "off the books" and paid "under the table" without any of the protections that documented workers enjoy.
The reason why there is a demand for illegal aliens is that the work still needs to be done and there aren't enough legal, undocumented workers to supply the demand for cheap labor.
Now we must decide if the problem is really about illegal immigration or undocumented work.
It seems to me that, if these jobs exist and there are not enough citizens and/or legal aliens to fill them, we must allow more immigrants to enter the U.S. legally. And if we do that, the problem of illegal immigration will be solved.
However, that will do nothing to stop businesses from using "very cheap, undocumented, uninsured, unregulated workers," which is a real human rights problem that has been swept under the carpet of illegal immigration.
25 - A.G.
Margaret, I insist that you change the title of this piece. This is not an issue over immigration. Immigration is good. Everyone, but the klan, likes immigration. This is an issue about "illegal" immigration.