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.
Ron Coleman
Comments
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
Leave a Comment