Poll: Most Americans think Arizona immigration law is "about right"

CBS

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

---

Updated: June 8, 9:10 am ET

(CBS News) As the Supreme Court weighs a decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law this summer, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that more than half of Americans see the law as "about right."

The legislation, which was signed into law in April 2010, is considered among the most stringent immigration laws in the nation. It requires Arizona law enforcement members to check the citizenship status of anyone they believe appears to be an undocumented immigrant -- and has incited much controversy about whether or not it effectively legalizes racial profiling in a state with a heavy Latino population.

According to the survey, conducted from May 31-June 3 among 976 adults nationwide, 52 percent of Americans believe Arizona's immigration policy is about right, while 33 percent say it goes too far. Eleven percent say the law does not go far enough.

The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging the law on the grounds that it conflicts with what it contends is the federal government's exclusive right to set immigration laws for the country.

Most Americans seem to disagree. Sixty-two percent of respondents - and majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents - say both the federal government and state governments should be able to determine laws regarding undocumented immigrants. Twenty-five percent (30 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans) think such laws should be determined exclusively by the federal government, and 11 percent (4 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans) think they should be determined by state governments only.

As to what Americans think should happen to undocumented immigrants who are currently working in the U.S., 43 percent think they should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, 21 percent think they should be allowed only as guest workers, and 32 percent think they should required to leave the country. These percentages have been generally consistent for the past three years.

President Obama has criticized the Arizona legislation as a "misguided" law that "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. "  The tensions between his position on the issue and that of Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer were highlighted earlier this year when the two engaged in a seemingly heated exchange when Mr. Obama arrived in Phoenix for a visit.

More from the poll:

Poll: Most think politics will influence Supreme Court health care decision
Poll: Most want health care mandate overturned
Poll: 60 percent oppose lifetime Supreme Court appointments
Read the complete poll (PDF)

---

This poll was conducted by telephone from May 31-June 3, 2012 among 976 adults nationwide. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

[GeorgeWells6666]

Look closely.

You have 1. Massive immigration, 2. To white countries only 3. Border laws suspended Coupled with: 4. Forced integration 5. Racial preference to non-whites 6. Coerced tolerance 7. Socially engineered assimilation/genetic blending

What is the end result of diversity? Genocide, white genocide.

How is this not white genocide - forced immigration + forced tolerance + assimilation = end of white people?

[Sminklewitz]

Ever hear of the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Israeli occupation of Palestine? Saddam Hussein and the Kurds? The Sunni and the Shea? Muslims kill one another all the time. In Darfur and Rwanda blacks hack each other to bits, and rape and kill one another. The entire planet is a fireball of ethnic conflicts, but you anti-Whites blame Joe European for it all. You want to demonize my race, for your genocidal intent! Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-White.

[Rabbitofthehighplains]

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

[AttyFAM]

by grwilliams20 June 8, 2012 10:11 PM EDT
This is not about civil rights, but about the sovereign right of U.S. citizens to assure that their immigration laws are enforced,
--------------------------------------

Begging your pardon, sir, but that is not a sovereign right of citizens. It is a sovereign right of the national government, and the U. S. Constitution says so. State governments have no right butting into matters of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Oh yes, the Democratic Party actually has more voters registered than the Republicans. Unfortunately, liberals tend to be less organized than fascists.

[AttyFAM]

by hillzhavays June 8, 2012 3:07 PM EDT
It is not a civil right that one should be allowed to bandy about the countryside and not be required to provide identification,
---------------------------------------

Actually, you are wrong. See the Supreme Court cases from the 1960s striking down the vagrancy laws. No one in America is required to produce identification or "give a good account of himself."

Amazing how right-wingers want to limit civil rights. Your papers, please. How they long for the good old days of German and Italian fascism.

[menon1000]

@Bojax39

I actually meat to say voting is something I 'will not be able to do' as a resident and botched a later edit, but I get that my meaning came across incorrectly. What I wanted convey in reponse to Wood_Yi was that even as a non-citizen, I participate in very many things in this society, it is just some things like voting and jury duty (yay !) that I 'will not be able to do'. And my comment to Wood_Yi about gibberish was something along the lines of those cartoons where a human is talking to an animal ( a pet ) and in the 'what the pet heard' box you get a speech bubble with a bunch of squiggly lines. Get it ?

As for 'needing' to be a citizen to effect change, that's so cute. The company I am with needed to, well, influence some lawmakers recently and i lead the effort to put together a lobbyist team and got it to happen. I suspect my influence on the political system was far greater than anything you have done. That is not to denigrate you, it just goes to show that the real instruments of change are not bound to citizenship status. Or the 'one' vote that you so proudly hold.


@Quercus454

Wow ! 'America, love it or leave it' again ! Actually, America is a great society ( and it is ) in SPITE of morons like you, and BECAUSE of people ( citizens or otherwise ) who cared enough to relentlessly critique what they found to be unjust, or too onerous and so on in its laws and practices. Out of that constant self examination came some of the best examples of social change.

What you clearly did not get from my post, is that I obviously know about the ID requirement, I said that it is intrusive ( even when applied to citizens, in fact I am better able to document my status than a citizen who has never traveled out of country, for example ) but what I said in the end that a law which takes that requirement and make a simple omission of it a FELONY is draconian. Such laws demean the society that wields them and make a mockery of an effort to claim the moral high ground against 2 bit Dictators and despot regimes that routinely do the same to their people.

"The USA, just like any other country has laws to protect and favor it's citizens. I just bet the country you left has them as well." Well, I already called you a moron so I suppose I should not double dip. The laws in the US are absolutely not drawn up to 'protect and favor' citizens. Quite the opposite. The laws are intended to be applied equally and fairly to ALL persons within its jurisdiction. The fact that it will not favor its citizens but apply fundamental principles of human rights fairly is one of the things that Americans can be justifiably proud of. Except for you.

And no, the country that I left, Canada, does not have laws like that either.

[pennislarry]

if it quacks like a duck,waddles like a duck and looks like a duck DONT PROFILE one never knows just look the otherway if the duck is a duck and commits a crime so what, we all can relish the fact at least the crime wasnt commit against one of us.

[Bevcater]

"Most Americans think Arizona immigration law is "about right"

ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THEIR ILK BELIEVE IN STEALING OUR COUNTRY!

American citizens need to ban together and start Big ORGANIZATIONS
to fight this illegal take over of the United States!
Vote out all traitors in office like Harry Reid.

[Sminklewitz]

Well said. Check out whiterabbitradio

[catt11mann]

I suggest any Republican's running for office and considering going soft on illegal immigration will lose, a majority of voters want enforcement, and nothing less.
We are a land of laws, and should not allow some to ignore our laws while the majority abide by the law.
Greedy business,liberal's and elected officials are destroying this country, pandering to criminals, that cost 123 billion a year to host, Stand Up and Take America Back or America is doomed!

[hillzhavays]

by fractalspher June 8, 2012 12:20 PM EDT
If someones being brought into the police station for anything, I don't have a problem with them running a criminal check which includes citizenship status.

But out on the streets randomly? "Hey you, I need to check if you're a citizen or not!" NO! Never.
____________________________

This is a good example of how well the Left and the Immigration Lobby have created a false hysteria about the law causing racial profiling.

Here is the actual language of the law:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

Wandering up to someone randomly and demanding papers is outside the guidelines of permissible police conduct.

nuff said, don't get caught up in the hysteria.

[cabadejo]

When whites were 90% of the population of America, civil rights groups talked about diversity and minority rights.

When whites will be 70% of the population, civil rights groups will talk about diversity and minority rights.

When whites will be 60% of the population, civil rights groups will talk about diversity and minority rights.

When whites will be 49% of the population, will civil rights groups talk about diversity and minority rights?

Or will they talk about diversity and majority rule?

Diversity is a code-word for White genocide.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.