Much has been written, discussed and pondered in the last week since the Arizona Legislature passed a very hard-line stance on illegal immigration enforcement.  There are two very important components that seemed to have been missed on the part of the national media during their discussions with non-Arizona “national leaders.”

First - the local issue.  Arguably more than any other state, illegal immigration is of grave concern in the state of Arizona.  The Mexican drug cartels have increased in size and the violence along the Arizona/Mexico border has become a significant problem.  Even with this situation, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has declared his city a “sanctuary city,” meaning he has ordered city officials to follow certain practices that protect illegal immigrants.  Couple this factor with the Maricopa County Sherriff - Joe Arpaio - who is outspoken about his efforts to round up illegal immigrants daily in patty wagons, put them in pink handcuffs and ship them back to their home county.  For those who aren’t familiar with Arizona’s geography, the city of Phoenix is entirely encompassed within Maricopa County, so the city’s law enforcement officials and the county’s law enforcement officials have completely opposite instructions on how to deal with illegal immigrants.  Because of these severely different means of enforcing the law in Arizona’s largest city, the state was forced to address it with a blanket policy.

Second - the national situation.  Whatever your personal feelings about the Arizona Legislature’s law and the constitutional issues surrounding it, the federal government’s lack of action on the matter forced their hand.  The State of Arizona has asked the federal government numerous times to send national guard troops to help protect US citizens from the violence along the Arizona/Mexico border to no avail (it should be noted that Arizona’s former Governor - Janet Napolitano - is currently the Homeland Security Secretary.  Read into that what you will).  The federal government has also put a significant amount of rhetoric on passing comprehensive federal immigration reform legislation.  But to date, nothing has happened.  With the violence increasing, Arizona’s State House members and State Senators had no choice but to pass a tough bill that will set the tone for all of the state’s law enforcement officials because of the lack of support from the federal government.  If the federal government is not doing its job in securing our borders, the State has no choice but to act upon the situation.  The political consequences are irrelevant compared to the State Legislature’s job of making sure the laws are properly enforced and our communities are kept safe and not put in harm’s way. 

It should be noted that recent polling data confirms that Arizona voters like the State Legislature’s bill.  While it is quite possible that Arizona voters differ significantly than US voters as a whole on the details of the state’s law, it underscores the local issue before the state and the federal government’s in-action in forcing the State Legislature’s hand into something it would have rather not had to take up.

Below are survey results in light of the highly publicized immigration bill passed by the Arizona State Legislature.  An interesting comparison between Arizona voters and the national mood on immigration reform.  Both polls were taken by Rasmussen.

Arizona Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted April 15, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

 1* Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?

70% Favor
23% Oppose
6% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

 

 

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted April 22-23, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

1* Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?

60% Favor
31% Oppose
10% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

 

 

 

As part of their annual Rights and Relations survey, Gallup today released findings from a recent study of 1900 adults nationwide showing that attitudes toward legal immigration had softened since the terrorist attacks on September 11.  That’s to be expected.

The problem with their findings is when they move from writing about legal immigration to writing about illegal immigration.  They make a leap from addressing legal immigration to addressing California’s Prop 187, which denied government benefits to illegal immigrants.

They do a solid job of detailing the dichotomy illustrated by two-thirds of Americans beleiving  immigrants cost taxpayers too much by using government services as opposed to becoming productive citizens who pay their fair share of taxes while 79% believe illegal immigrants takes low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want:

All this is very good–not surprising for Gallup.  However, they then editorialize that “illegal immigration has faded from the public consciousness”, based on the finding that just 27% of Americans Adults (not voters remember) say illegal immigration will be an extremely important issue to their vote for President this year.

Has illegal immigration faded as an issue?  The economy has certainly been the top issue since around last December, but what about illegal immigration?  According to PollingReport.com, it really hasn’t faded much at all when asked comparatively.  In May of 2007 (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3), 31% called illegal immigration “extremely important” in their vote for president.  In January of 2007 (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3), 32% called illegal immigration “extremely important”,  In October of 2006 (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics. Oct. 10-11, 2006. N=900 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3), 29% said illegal immigration was “extremely important”.

So, the number today is 27%, and in the past it’s been 31%, 32% and 29%.  Pretty consistent, particularly considering the rise in importance of the economy.

Bottom line is this is a good survey by Gallup, and it’s a postive thing that attitudes toward legal immigrants have softened.  But attitudes regarding illegal immigration have, in my opinion, stayed about the same for the last few years and these data released today don’t prove anything different. 

Despite the economy and energy prices’ dramatic rise as a top issue among the electorate, voters indicate that the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, and continued protection from terrorism are also key concerns and will play a significant role in how they choose the next President of the United States.

The recently released AP/Yahoo News Poll demonstrates that voters are largely unsure which candidate can best fix the ailing economy (32% Obama - 28% McCain); however, they clearly believe that McCain is best equipped to deal with:

The situation in Iraq (39% McCain - 33% Obama)
Terrorism (44% McCain - 20% Obama)
Immigration (30% McCain - 24% Obama)

Clearly, voters trust McCain with overall security of the country and believe that he can reign-in the situation in Iraq.  The key for the McCain campaign now lies in proving that his experience can bring economic relief.  This is a far less strenuous task than Obama’s, who first has to prove that he is even trustworthy.  But, voters may have a hard time trusting in a candidate that is untested. 

Campaign media can do a lot, but building an alternate reality where Obama has actual leadership experience is not something I’ve ever seen political ads (even the best ads) do.