Poll: Sixty Percent of Voters Support Illegal Immigrants Staying And Applying For Citizenship

150px-CBS_Eyemark.svgA new CBS poll shows considerable opposition to the Trump Administration’s approach to immigration.  The poll confirms that immigration is the top issue in the minds of voters.  However, it also shows 60 percent of voters support the right of illegal immigrants being allowed to stay and achieve citizenship.  Some 58 percent oppose the building of the wall.

The percentage is even higher for those favoring immigrants since an additional 13 percent would allow the immigrants to stay but not apply for citizenship.   Only 23 percent would force them to leave.  The percentage rise according to party.  Yet, only 43 percent of Republicans (less than a majority) favor requiring all illegal immigrants to leave the country.  Conversely, 79 percent of Democrats want illegal immigrants to be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Likewise, 77 percent of Republicans favor the wall while only 11 percent do so.

While an earlier poll showed considerable opposition for sanctuary cities, this poll shows a sharp opposition to the basic components of the Trump immigration policy.  That may add to the unease of many Republican members in forging ahead beyond the plan to deport “criminal illegal immigrants.”

The poll numbers on the executive order are closer though a majority still opposed the order.


95 thoughts on “Poll: Sixty Percent of Voters Support Illegal Immigrants Staying And Applying For Citizenship”

    1. David Benson,
      -I’m not sure the having “more than 129 languages spoken in Seattle public schools” is an advantage.
      Interesting article…..maybe there are others out there that don’t cherry pick three legal, successful immigrants
      and present them as representative of all immigrants.

      1. yes Imagine if the Farooks of San Bernardino were subbed for the Vietnamese daughter who came with her parents in the late 70s in the article… Farook father came here, to Chicago, in the 70s under, god helps us, a ”diversity” program of that era. At least according to reported information, basically held occasional jobs as a long haul trucker. And we know about the son and daughter-in-law.

    2. These represent most immigrants in Washington state, although perhaps more successful than many.

      1. Metro Seattle has an “estimated 150,000 immigrants without legal status”. – Report on immigration and refugees, Seattle.gov
        I haven’t seen studies presenting data on legal immigrants to Seattle or Washington State.
        There may be a report out there somewhere that presents types of employments, education levels, English language skills, income levels, etc. of legal immigrants.

      1. What? Because I am amused at the absurdity of the deluded French left who thought Obama was fabulous? Hey, maybe they can take HRC as well. One can always hope!

        1. He’s a smart guy, so I suspect he would know how to point Lepen to where Clinton stashed Putin’s uranium money.

            1. She is the white nationalist candidate. Don’t get your hopes up as she won’t win the runoff. She is anti Jewish and anti-Muslim.

              1. I have no horse in this race. Just watching out of curiosity whether Olde Europe will be destroyed. I would prefer a moderate who understands the problems of multi culti bs and is in favor of extricating itself from the corporatists at the EU…

  1. A poll from CBS has a credibility of zero. CBS is controlled by Viacom, one of the leading Elite-Establishment media centers. Viacom’s chairman and chief executive, Sumner Redstone, is a self-described “liberal Democrat” and a prolific donor to Democratic campaigns. Of Viacom’s 13 board members, eight contribute primarily to Democratic candidates and party committees.

    It goes without saying that the Democrats favor open borders and illegal immigrants. It’s been their mantra for a long time.

    ‘Nuff said.

  2. It is true that most people in the US do not favor requiring all illegal immigrants be deported, because that would include the humanitarian cases – little old ladies, the terminally ill, tiny children. Just posing the question with the “all” word at all was guaranteed to get that result. Plus, a nationwide poll would include states far away from the chaos of illegal immigration at our borders.

    Even President Trump himself has prioritized deporting dangerous criminals first, and has remarked on how the plight of kids brought here illegally is heart breaking.

    This was a cleverly worded poll to make it appear that America supports illegal immigration in general, when they don’t.

    It bears repeating that if we solidify the border by whatever appropriate means, then we’ll effectively shut off the flow of exactly those cases that drive the angst in what to do about illegal immigration. If everyone who immigrated here came through the legal system, then the problem would be greatly reduced. Not gone, as we’d always have to track and respond to those who overstay their visas (like the 9/11 hijackers). But anywhere from 60% to 70% of the problem would be taken care of (based on a wide range of studies from 2006 estimating visa overstay to account for anywhere from 30% to 40% of illegal immigration.) Once its down to more manageable levels, there will be more room to make humane exceptions.

  3. 1. It’s difficult to sample reliably anymore.

    2. You can bollix or rig the poll by phrasing the question a particular way.

    3. It’s CBS. No one thinks they’re above deceit.

  4. There is a distinction between and illegal immigrant and an illegal immigrant with a criminal offense whether convicted or charges with such criminal offense. Most Americans do not want illegal aliens crossing the border with meth or heroin do they?

    There are some grammar problems in the article. “Likewise, 77 percent of Republicans favor the wall while only 11 percent do so. “Likewise, 77 percent of Republicans favor the wall while only 11 percent do”. Eleven percent of who do so?

  5. The wall I don’t support because it will be just another tourist attraction not long after it’s built, and as Ted Kennedy said, if we build a 30-foot wall, they’ll build a 31-foot ladder, but it’s true that something has to be done about relatively unfettered immigration.

    How about a federal law providing for a mandatory minimum two years in federal prison for employers (including all officers and all boardmembers, collectively) who hire anyone, 1099 or W-2 wage earners, who are not legally permitted to work here? To ensure an ability to vet applicants, the federal department of labor will provide thumbprint matches upon request for all applicants by taking a few percentage points of defense funding each year to facilitate the effort. Having little job opportunity should significantly reduce illegal immigration, but there will always be jobs for them if employers are not spanked hard for hiring them.

    Too invasive of privacy? Maybe, but it’s better than rounding up Colombians, Salvadorans, Equadorians, Panamanians, Hondurans, and Guatemalans in grade schools and on college campuses and forcing them to walk across the border into Mexico with no shoes on. Have a little respect for your fellow man. They’re human beings, too.

    There will always be some illegal immigration. It’s the nature of the beast, and it’s the beast that has devastated the economies of the countries from which they’ve emigrated for their own security, ironically. There’s always a price to pay for being a bully.

    1. SteveG – of course any wall or physical barrier would have to be manned. If manned walls don’t work, then why do they use them in prisons, Hadrian’s Wall, The Great Wall of China, Israel, gated communities, gated parking garages, Disneyland, Universal Studios, Magic Mountain…

      If walls didn’t work then who would spend all that money to buy a ticket to Disneyland when they could just walk through?

      I do agree with you, however, that unless it was manned it wouldn’t work. And there may be environmental or logistical challenges in at least some areas which would require a different, manned, barrier, such as drone patrol or heat sensing cameras. Geez, we have a treasure trove of dystopian Hollywood movies from which to choose monitoring systems to keep people from line cutting.

      And, of course, we would still need a viable, but safe, refugee and asylum system. My God, post 9/11, there must be so much pressure on those responsible for choosing who gets in under refugee or asylum that the carbon in their bodies must be transformed into micro diamonds.

      1. Karen:

        I think there are other ways to get this done and well short of a wall and rousting children out of bed and college campuses. The bottom line is that there’s no will on either side of the aisle to stop illegal immigration. Trump wants a wall and all its symbolism and box-office appeal to knee-jerkers as his swan song.

        Stronger penalties to prevent hiring immigrants who do not comply with immigration protocol and a better process for vetting employment applicants through a federal application to work and a rapid employer-inquiry program are pieces of the puzzle.

        Further, visa applicants should have to post a bond against overstays in an amount equal to an airline ticket home on a violation.

        There’s little doubt that because there’s been no will to stop illegal immigration the effect has been to encourage it. Anyone from below the border would attempt relocation to what they perceive is a better life here. I don’t blame them. I would, too. For these reasons, I think that until we earnestly want to stop illegal immigration, amnesty is better than deportation using our federal and local law enforcement officers as a Gestapo. Anything to the contrary is the sign of a failed and unstable society.

    2. “…How about a federal law providing for a mandatory minimum two years in federal prison for employers (including all officers and all boardmembers, collectively) who hire anyone, 1099 or W-2 wage earners, who are not legally permitted to work here? To ensure an ability to vet applicants, the federal department of labor will provide thumbprint matches upon request for all applicants by taking a few percentage points of defense funding each year to facilitate the effort. Having little job opportunity should significantly reduce illegal immigration, but there will always be jobs for them if employers are not spanked hard for hiring them.”

      As it stands now employers have very little ability to avoid hiring illegal aliens. I know because I was an employer in an industry that’s infamous for hiring illegal aliens. The restaurant industry. Per the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 I had to accept any documents that appeared legitimate, not matter how much I suspected they were forgeries, that established identity and ability to lawfully accept work in this country. It’s virtually impossible for an employer to detect a forgery, especially because a bribed official will often sell legitimate blanks to criminals. I can not ask for different documents, I can not ask for more documents. The DoJ considers that as being “overzealous” which is a crime.

      To illustrate how warped the situation is for employers, here’s a blast from the past.


      “Meg Whitman’s campaign for governor was thrown into turmoil Thursday as the Republican sought to fend off new evidence that she knowingly had an illegal immigrant housekeeper on her payroll for nearly a decade.

      Whitman denounced the allegations as a “baseless smear attack” by Democratic challenger Jerry Brown in what has become a dead-heat race five weeks before the election.

      The central issue is whether Whitman knew about a letter that the Social Security Administration sent her in 2003 that raised discrepancies about the housekeeper’s documents — a possible tip-off that she could be illegal.

      The letter is the foundation for claims by former maid Nicky Diaz Santillan that Whitman and her husband knew for years she was in the U.S. illegally, but kept her on the job regardless…”

      I know what I can and can’t do to walk the legal tightrope that is current immigration law when and if I get a “no match” letter from the SSA. First, I can’t fire the individual. I can’t assume the “no match” letter means the individual is in the country illegally. Note how the fake news report on Meg Whitman doesn’t say that the employer is legally required to adopt the position it’s all just a mistake. At first, yours. Then later, maybe the employees. If you as an employer can’t resolve the discrepancy then you have to inform the employee that there is a discrepancy. All that amounts to is “fair warning” that the illegal needs to find a new job. Because in the real world that’s what happens.

      But let’s not unduly distract us from the real problem.


      Nicky Diaz Santillian can go on national TV and boast along with her ambulance chaser about committing two federal felonies.

      Talk about being out of the shadows. You can’t get more out of the shadows knowing that you will suffer no consequences by going on national TV with Gloria Allred and confirming you committed two federal felonies. First, document fraud by submitting fake documents. Then by signing the I-9 form under penalty of perjury that you are legally in this country and legally able to accept work.

      Knowing that the only people will suffer are Americans whose hands are tied by the law. While you, the illegal alien, are above it.

      1. Apparently, the law you’ve cited needs to be changed. I offered a raw idea, combining a real penalty with what would be expedited federal thumbprint matching requiring a federal application to work here, but which you completely ignored because of your alleged command of the restaurant industry and what I infer to be your disdain for all things regulatory. Why discuss anything with you when your goal is to dominate the discussion with . . . you . . . and your near-sightedness with respect to the concept of balance between society and business?

        It’s really not worth the time, Flagg.

  6. Make them pay back taxes, fees, if they break any laws before they become legal citizens send them home….Oh wait…didn’t Obama want that? Of course it was Obama so the thugs said no.

  7. Many of those who are here illegally refer to us as the Great Satan. Maybe they’ve been watching our Super Bowl’s half-time shows, Hollywood award ceremonies, #Pizzagate stuff etc. What could go wrong?

  8. Last month I read a passing reference to a “Berkeley poll” of Californians and Sanctuary cities… there was, in what I read, no mention of who carried out the poll. I ran a quick search just now to see if it was in fact real and to get a little more detail. Haven’t had a chance to follow up with the links/open up the poll, but seems topical …. IGS UC Berkeley poll found 74% of Californians against Sanctuary Cities.


    Interestingly, the first link up on the page is a poll, also IGS UCB run in September 2015. High numbers against Sanctuary cities then too…

  9. I agree with the rest, both polls can’t be accurate to the extent that they are. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don’t trust big data sets or controlled social experiments, both are inherently flawed models of measurement for different reasons.

  10. It is not rational to reward those entering this country illegally with US citizenship…ever. If those on the ‘let them stay’ side of the argument were truly motivated by compassion then they should have no problems with additional restrictions IF they are allowed to remain legally. No public assistance, wages at full ride, no federal or state grants for college, no in-state tuition, no quota preferences, no voting, no sending of money back to their country of origin, steeper penalties for crimes (one strike and your out), learn our language, no birthright citizenship; their children inherit the same legal status as the parents, etc.

    1. And the “Bowling Green Massacre” is real. The only poll that counts is Kelly Ann Polls.

  11. By dumping California, you undo 40 years of illegal immigration that has helped swamp our country with big government and big hand-outs. Without California, it will take liberals another 40 years to get back in the White House. I say dump California, and make them pay for a wall along Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. And then take the rest of the illegals in the US and deport them to California.

Comments are closed.