PDA

View Full Version : 70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigrati



wildcard
25th April 2010, 12:41 AM
Link to Original Article (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration)

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration


The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern

Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.

Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.

The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.

Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.

While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.

In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.

That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.

The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.

The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.

When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.


EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent forum page scrolling to the right. -Gaillo

wildcard
25th April 2010, 12:52 AM
EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent forum page scrolling to the right. -Gaillo

Fascist pig dog! >:( Police state!

Attica! Attica!

Odysseus
25th April 2010, 07:31 AM
No majority can legitimately vote away a man's rights, property or freedom.

Book
25th April 2010, 07:38 AM
No majority can legitimately vote away a man's rights, property or freedom.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/illegalaliens_1.jpg

No minority can legitimately invade a nation's rights, property or freedom.

:oo-->

EE_
25th April 2010, 08:40 AM
I bet 70% or more residents of California, New Mexico, and Texas are worried the Arizona illegal's are going to move to their states.

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 08:58 AM
How Rasmussen's right-wing bias has made it a laughing stock among major pollsters

There's are reasons most major news outlets don't often mention a Rasmussen poll. One reason is because their questions are designed to elicit responses that skew heavily to the right.

The second reason is that Rasmussen doesn't even use live operators or ask for voice responses. They robo-call their phone list sample, which is weighted more heavily to Republican households than the general demographic, and they tabulate based on phone keypad responses. There's no quality control in that polling - does voice mail or a fax machine produce tones that Rasmussen counts as "yes" responses? Nobody knows. Does no response produce a "yes" response? Nobody knows.

We do know that they're an outlier that always produces results that guarantee favorable Fox News coverage and always agree with the GOP talking points of the moment.

That's a little too coincidental for most news organizations to take seriously.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/03/is_rasmussen_really_biased.html

wildcard
25th April 2010, 03:14 PM
Rofl, whites will be wiped out in a few more generations and the last ones will celebrate the passing.

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 03:22 PM
ASSmussen predicted McCain was going to win the 2008 election.

McCain lost my the biggest margin since 1908 - 100 years ago.

Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX quote ASSmussen numbers all the time. That is all you need to know.

They are corporate whores.

wildcard
25th April 2010, 03:27 PM
Whatever commie. Enjoy your brown turd world hellhole.

Apparition
25th April 2010, 03:41 PM
ASSmussen predicted McCain was going to win the 2008 election.

McCain lost my the biggest margin since 1908 - 100 years ago.

Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX quote ASSmussen numbers all the time. That is all you need to know.

They are corporate whores.


I've read reports stating that Rasmussen was quite accurate:

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the_list_which_presidential_po.html

http://beta.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/stability_was_the_hallmark_of_election_2008

philo beddoe
25th April 2010, 05:48 PM
ASSmussen predicted McCain was going to win the 2008 election.

McCain lost my the biggest margin since 1908 - 100 years ago.

Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX quote ASSmussen numbers all the time. That is all you need to know.

They are corporate whores.


Should you still keep the neutral in your name? some suggestions:
marketshill
marketleftie
marketbasket
marketcommie
marketbeaner
marketbias

Horn
25th April 2010, 05:58 PM
In the future everything being taken care of, there is nothing from stopping this from "papers" being created for everyone.

Both sides should do well to realize the situation was created for just that sort of thing.

Entitlement being handed to police to act with impunity will have future impact either way if the law remains or not.

Once implemented will be hard to draw the line back.

philo beddoe
25th April 2010, 06:01 PM
In the future everything being taken care of, there is nothing from stopping this from "papers" being created for everyone.

Both sides should do well to realize the situation was created for just that sort of thing.

Entitlement being handed to police to act with impunity will have future impact either way if the law remains or not.

Once implemented will be hard to draw the line back.

How do you know this isn't real, and we will all find out the truth when obongo send the national guard to phoenix.

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 10:13 PM
Nov 2 - 2 days before the election. Rassmussen wrote an article - Beware exit polls. Basically saying everyone thought Kerry was going to win in 2004 and only Democrats participated in 2008 exit polls (for the early returns).

This was the same time the early return exit polls were coming back and McCain was getting crushed.

Fox picked up on that on Sunday and the whole day (Nov 2) was "remember Kerry thought he won, go vote for McCain". Then Nov 3 it was Rush, Hannity clones to do the 'we are neck and neck, get out and vote because we have to drag McCain across the finish line". Limbaugh did the whole 3 hour show around this article. It was also the Drudge spinning red lights news splash for 2 days BEWARE EXIT POLLS.

Why would an unbaised polling agency write an article - 2 days before the election about - don't believe the exit polling numbers?
Unless he was trying to influence voters.

http://67.192.47.27/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/beware_of_exit_polls
(from Rassmussen Reports on Nov 2 - had to find it in the cache murk)
Basically it was a a cry to get out and vote for McCain.

Then around lunchtime on election day - Rassmussen came on Fox and predicted Obama was going to win.

Got to remember your history and how things really happened.

Olmstein
25th April 2010, 10:20 PM
OK, MarketNeutral, we get that Rasmussen is a biased polling organization. Instead of continuing to trash them, why don't you locate some polling data from a more neutral source and post that here as a rebuttal?

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 10:24 PM
[Should you still keep the phio beddoe in your name? some suggestions:
[/quote]

White Supremist
Master Race Baiter
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
Heil Mein Führer
Volksdeutsche
Mein Kampf
Fascism Lover

wildcard
25th April 2010, 10:25 PM
Y'know, he's right, they probably are wrong. If you wiped out the votes of the dirty brown bastards that were here illegally that opposed the legislation, the true percentage of supporters would probably be closer to 95%. The remaining 5% would be the low IQ, socialist, white guilt sufferers that have been brainwashed by the jewsmedia.

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 10:29 PM
OK, MarketNeutral, we get that Rasmussen is a biased polling organization. Instead of continuing to trash them, why don't you locate some polling data from a more neutral source and post that here as a rebuttal?


I just posted an article from Nov 2 that said don't believe the early return exit polling.

He should of came out right then and called the election and then wait until midmorning of the election. Biggest margin of victory in 100 years - and less then 40 hours until the election and polling results were neck and neck? I don't think so.

For 2 straight days that was Fox and Neocon radio shows - that article and you have to get out and vote for McCain because everyone thought Kerry won.

If you don't remember that weekend and Monday - sorry. Can't help ya.

philo beddoe
25th April 2010, 10:30 PM
[Should you still keep the phio beddoe in your name? some suggestions:


White Supremist
Master Race Baiter
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
Heil Mein Führer
Volksdeutsche
Mein Kampf
Fascism Lover

[/quote]what exactly is a white supremist?

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 10:32 PM
[

what exactly is a white supremist?
[/quote]

You.

philo beddoe
25th April 2010, 10:34 PM
[

what exactly is a white supremist?


You.
[/quote]and you're a kike

Olmstein
25th April 2010, 10:35 PM
OK, MarketNeutral, we get that Rasmussen is a biased polling organization. Instead of continuing to trash them, why don't you locate some polling data from a more neutral source and post that here as a rebuttal?


I just posted an article from Nov 2 that said don't believe the early return exit polling.

He should of came out right then and called the election and then wait until midmorning of the election. Biggest margin of victory in 100 years - and less then 40 hours until the election and polling results were neck and neck? I don't think so.

For 2 straight days that was Fox and Neocon radio shows - that article and you have to get out and vote for McCain because everyone thought Kerry won.

If you don't remember that weekend and Monday - sorry. Can't help ya.




Like I said, we get it that rasmussen is a biased polling firm, just like faux news is biased. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some polling on the topic at hand by another polling firm.

Olmstein
25th April 2010, 10:36 PM
Thunderdome!
Thunderdome!
Thunderdome!

MarketNeutral
25th April 2010, 10:36 PM
OK, MarketNeutral, we get that Rasmussen is a biased polling organization. Instead of continuing to trash them, why don't you locate some polling data from a more neutral source and post that here as a rebuttal?


The reason I "trashed" Rassmussen is because that was the "rating service" that the poll the OP posted an article about. The same rating services that uses these methods:

There's are reasons most major news outlets don't often mention a Rasmussen poll. One reason is because their questions are designed to elicit responses that skew heavily to the right.

The second reason is that Rasmussen doesn't even use live operators or ask for voice responses. They robo-call their phone list sample, which is weighted more heavily to Republican households than the general demographic, and they tabulate based on phone keypad responses. There's no quality control in that polling - does voice mail or a fax machine produce tones that Rasmussen counts as "yes" responses? Nobody knows. Does no response produce a "yes" response?

Olmstein
26th April 2010, 12:57 AM
No majority can legitimately vote away a man's rights, property or freedom.


Tell the forum who you were at GIM, or go away.

Odysseus
26th April 2010, 01:03 AM
No majority can legitimately vote away a man's rights, property or freedom.


Tell the forum who you were at GIM, or go away.


And you think spamming every thread with your ridiculous demand will accomplish anything other than proving you're obssessive?

Again, mind your own business.

Horn
26th April 2010, 08:42 AM
No majority can legitimately vote away a man's rights, property or freedom.


Tell the forum who you were at GIM, or go away.


Do you work for the Arizona State Police, Olmstein? ;D

Is this your jurisdiction?

Grand Master Melon
26th April 2010, 08:57 AM
what exactly is a white supremist?


You.
and you're a kike


And neither one of you can fix a quote.