61% Favor a State Law That Would Shut Down Repeat Offenders Who Hire Illegal Immigrants

Rasmussen Reports, May 31, 2011

{snip}

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a law in their state that would shut down companies that knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. Just 21% oppose such a law, and another 18% are undecided.

Eighty-two percent (82%) think businesses should be required to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally. Twelve percent (12%) disagree and oppose such a requirement.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also feel that landlords should be required to check and make sure a potential renter is in the country legally before renting them an apartment. Twenty-eight percent (28%) do not believe landlords should be required to make such checks.

Separate recent polling shows that two-out-of-three voters (66%) favor strict government sanctions against employees who hire illegal immigrants, while 51% support sanctions against those who rent or sell property to those who are in this country illegally. This is consistent with surveys for years.

{snip}

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters think a state should have the right to enforce immigration laws if it believes the federal government is not enforcing them. Yet while most voters continue to feel the federal government’s policies encourage illegal immigration, they remain closely divided over whether it’s better to let the federal government or individual states enforce immigration laws.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with the Obama administration in the unsuccessful Supreme Court challenge of Arizona’s employer sanctions law. But then 68% of voters believe that government and big business work together against the interests of consumers and investors. That view is shared across partisan, demographic and ideological lines.

{snip}

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters favor a cutoff of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities, but only 29% think Congress is even somewhat likely to agree to cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

{snip}

But voters are more pessimistic than ever about the possibility of stopping illegal immigration for good in the United States.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Kingoldby

    Yet another proof of the disconnect between the people and their ‘representatives’.

    How long can a democracy blatantly fail to act on the will of the people?

  • John Engelman

    Immigration, and especially illegal immigration, is an issue that separates the economic elites of both parties from rank and file voters.

    Affluent Democrats are sympathetic to illegals for humanitarian reasons. Affluent Republicans favor open borders for economic reasons.

    Most Americans understand that the high rate of immigration is a major reason for the growing income gap, and for their stagnant incomes.

  • Anonymous

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with the Obama administration in the unsuccessful Supreme Court challenge of Arizona’s employer sanctions law.

    The lefties say the GOP is in cahoots with big business. But it looks like the Obama admin is getting some juice, too.

    But voters are more pessimistic than ever about the possibility of stopping illegal immigration for good in the United States.

    Voters aren’t pessimistic that it can be done. Voters are pessimistic about politicians doing it. The system is broken. The politicians don’t work for the majority of Americans who want the laws enforced. They work for special interests. And that includes the Chamber of Commerce.

  • Anonymous

    “Eighty-two percent (82%) think businesses should be required to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally. Twelve percent (12%) disagree and oppose such a requirement.” Sadly it our Federal government that is in the 12% that disagrees.

  • white is right, black is whack

    So it’s illegal to tell an employer that they can’t hire illegals, but it’s not illegal to tell an employer they have to hire nonwhites, women, and illegals over white men?

  • John Engelman

    1 — Kingoldby wrote at 7:14 PM on June 2:

    Yet another proof of the disconnect between the people and their ‘representatives’.

    How long can a democracy blatantly fail to act on the will of the people?

    ——

    Arizona did pass a law closing companies that hire illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court did uphold the law.

  • Anonymous

    #1 Kingoldby said-

    >>

    Yet another proof of the disconnect between the people and their ‘representatives’.

    How long can a democracy blatantly fail to act on the will of the people?

    >>

    We do not and never have lived in a democracy.

    Democracy was impossible in the 1700s when this nation was formed as few were fully literate, many lived -weeks- away from awareness of the world at large, and the voting and postal systems were at once corrupt and poorly maintained.

    The U.S. government was always created with the perception of advancing the cause of the wealthy because the wealthy were the ones whose conceit required them to separate from England to pursue ever greater fortunes. Why, if they would risk hanging for treason to Crown Rule, would they now submit to a demographically doomed middle class which can only threaten to fire them, every four to six years?

    Did we have a society where politicians had to campaign on strictly public-mandated platforms of national relevance and not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (homosexual marriage, women in the military or other trivial matters…) using a fixed, federally allocated, campaign chest and a required number of debates. We might be able to elect some honest -representatives-. Did they in turn face the possible consequences of immediate recall and replacement for abandoning their stated campaign goals, we almost certainly would do better.

    But it still would not be democracy.

    If true democracy could be brought to our nation using the internet and intelligent context testing on a weekly basis to show ‘proof of interest’ as much as literacy before voting, we could, _directly_, have total dominant influence upon such critical issues as immigration and social entitlement spending, simply by being the only ethny with the patience and dedication to sit through online congressional committee hearings and do our own continuing research to support our own interests.

    Such a system is, IMO, the natural convocational followup to our central government’s massively wasteful, centralized, bureaucratic and physical infrastructure system in a post-U.S., white, ethno state. So that we may truly look to ourselves and _know_ we have no one else to blame if we fail.

    But as long as the elite classes of our society can belong to exclusive groups with no oversight, the sum of whoses financial assets are used to pay for political campaigns which determine, exclusively, the real planks in a given candidate’s policy platform, we have no hope.

    Because it is just too easy to run a traitor ‘on a winning ticket’ ($$$), use him to get what you want until he is so unpopular he has to be replaced.

    And then pay for the replacement already winding up in the bullpen.

    Political parties run strings of upwardly mobile hopefuls the same way studios used to groom actors, by the baker’s dozen.