Poll: Public Losing Interest in Immigration Reform Following Boston Bombing

grape ape

Registered Users (C)
Poll: Public Losing Interest in Immigration Reform Following Boston Bombing
The public's interest, motivation to fight for immigration reform is dwindling

By Lauren Fox
May 3, 2013

A new Quinnipiac poll out finds public support for immigration reform falling rapidly in the wake of the bombings at the Boston Marathon.

In a matter of weeks, support for giving immigrants who entered the country illegally a path to citizenship has dropped from 59 percent to 52 percent, which is the lowest number thus far. And 30 percent of voters now believe that immigrants who crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas should be required to return home before they can become citizens.

For some, the apprehension to give immigrants currently in the country illegally a path to citizenship is related to Boston. Nearly a quarter of those polled (22 percent) said that they believed giving immigrants a path to citizenship would lead to more terrorism.

Boston bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev emigrated to the U.S. in 2002 and were granted asylum. While Tamerlan was a legal resident, Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012.

Tamar Jacoby, the president of ImmigrationWorks USA, says that while the bombings have been used by some lawmakers on the hill to enforce the notion that legalizing the country's 11 million immigrants who entered the country illegally,would be dangerous, many were already against sweeping reform.

"Boston cemented what people already thought about immigration reform," Jacoby says. "It gave opponents another reason to stop it and proponents another reason to move faster."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate's Judiciary committee, has said that the bombings in Boston should be a clear sign that it's time to put the brakes on immigration reform.

Others like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has called that assumption ridiculous and has said that if Congress would have acted on the "gang of eight's" 800-page immigration bill earlier it could have actually made a difference.

"Our bill actually strengthens security and the events of Boston, if anything, should importune us to leave the status quo and go to a proposal like ours," Schumer said.

One provision within the immigration legislation requires government agencies to more closely monitor the movement of individuals as they travel internationally.

But another poll this week showed that the American public is not convinced that immigration reform will make them safer. Only 36 percent felt like the Boston bombing attacks should be a important factor in the immigration debate.

A Pew Research Center poll showed that only 14 percent of Americans thought immigration reform would make the country more secure. More than 55 percent said they did not think that passing immigration reform would change their safety at all.

The promising news for immigration advocates is that most Americans are not that engaged at this point. Many have yet to make up their minds. While 44 percent of Democrats favor immigration legislation and 22 percent oppose it, 33 percent have not formed an opinion yet. Among Republicans, only 30 percent support the bill, 34 percent are against it, but nearly 40 percent are still on the fence.

"It's normal to see ups and downs in the polling as we go from the original honeymoon stage," Jacoby says. "This is not one grand bargain. There is a compromise on every page. This is 536 people with thousands behind them guiding their hands working together on a Swiss watch."



Registered Users (C)
I just don't understand why the "immigration reform" should all be in one gigantic bill? What prevents the Congress from enacting different parts of this reform as individual laws? Few people would be against increasing enforcement of already existing laws or to strengthen the border security. Or using electronic verification of immigration status for inter-agencies use (e.g., SEVIS? SAVE, eVerify). Granting undocumented immigrants path to legalisation is a more contentious issue, so it needs more elaboration in the Congress. All this "either all or nothing" framework adopted by the Capitol Hill looks very inefficient to me. Just because one provision of the bill is not very popular, the whole bill is killed along with provisions that make sense and that most people agree on.

grape ape

Registered Users (C)
if terrorism is the issue they should separate them as you suggested, and in addition to some of the above provisions, expand the amount of people allowed to come in from mexico for the jobs they come to fill, that americans refuse to. give them cards to track them, make them pay a fee and collect taxes properly from them as who they really are. do checks randomly @ job sites to verify, and all is good. they don't have to pay exorbitant prices for being smuggled and we get an even greater boost to our revenues than they already provide us with.

student and tourist visas have been the problem in terms of security. address that. by checking people and processing them at the border that want jobs we can allow border patrol to focus on criminals, not spending billions trying to stop people from picking oranges without the proper credentials to do so. that's just idiotic.