Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration – Poll Results (2003)

II. Approval of Methods to Deal With Illegal Immigration

Halting Immigration

Americans support taking tough measures to halt illegal immigration, including:

Mandatory detention and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally (83%; 56% “strongly agree”)

Support remains solid, though declines somewhat, when instead of detention, illegal immigrants would face:

A mandatory prison term and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally (70%; 45% “strongly agree”)

Americans also agree that a “practical way” of halting illegal immigration would be to make penalties for illegal presence here so severe that no illegal immigrants would come here or remain here out of fear of being caught (63% agree, 42% agree “strongly”). Older Americans are especially likely to “strongly agree.”

Reducing the Number of Illegal Immigrants

Americans also support taking the same tough measures to reduce the number of illegal aliens currently in the U.S. to “near zero,” including:

Mandatory detention and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally (78%; 51% “strongly agree”)

Support declines somewhat, though still remains, when instead of detention, illegal immigrants would face:

A mandatory prison term and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally (69%; 46% “strongly agree”)

Americans also agree that a “practical way” of achieving this goal would be to make to make penalties for illegal presence here so severe that illegal immigrants would leave voluntarily rather than run the risk of being caught and made to pay the consequences (64% agree, 44% agree “strongly”). Older Americans are especially likely to “strongly agree” with the soundness of this approach.



And another statement: “To achieve the goal of halting completely the annual entry of an estimated 400,000 new illegal immigrants, Congress should authorize tough measures to do it, up to and including mandatory detention and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Q7)

 

And another statement: “To achieve the goal of halting completely the annual entry of an estimated 400,000 new illegal immigrants, Congress should authorize tough measures to do it, up to and including a mandatory prison term and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Q8)

Here’s another statement: “To achieve the goal of reducing the number of illegal immigrants now living permanently in the U.S. to near zero, Congress should authorize tough measures to do it, up to and including mandatory detention and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Q4)

And here’s another statement: “To achieve the goal of reducing the number of illegal immigrants now living here permanently to near zero, Congress should authorize tough measures to do it, up to and including a mandatory prison term and forfeiture of property, followed by deportation, for anyone here illegally.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Q5)

NPG

There is no remedy that can possibly avert disastrous Climate Change and Global Warming unless we first address the problem of world population size and growth, and its impact on the size of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.That means that we need to address the population size and growth of each nation, which together make up the world total.

World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!

From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?
Like and Share:
advert
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial