 |
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | June 2007 
Poll: Bush Base Erodes on Immigration Debate
 Gary Langer - ABC News
45 Percent of Republicans approve of president's handling of issue.
President Bush's immigration reform package has badly damaged his ratings on the issue from his core supporters, with his approval rating for handling immigration plummeting among Republicans and conservatives.
Fewer than half of Republicans, 45 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, now approve of how Bush is handling immigration, down from 61 percent in April - that's a 16-point drop in six weeks. Just 35 percent of conservatives approve, down from 48 percent.
This marks one of the few times in his presidency Bush has received less than 50 percent approval from members of his own party on any issue in an ABC/Post poll. On handling the Iraq War, for comparison, he's never gone below 62 percent approval from Republicans.
This being politics, Bush has not received much concomitant gain from Democrats or independents, who are more favorably inclined toward some of his immigration proposals but not to Bush himself.
Among all Americans, just 29 percent now approve of his handling of immigration, a career low. And the public trusts the Democrats in Congress over Bush to handle the issue by 48 percent to 31 percent, essentially the same as in December.
Hot Potato
Congress takes up the immigration package this week, and it's clearly a contentious one, with divisions among political, ideological and other groups.
Overall, a narrow majority, 52 percent, favors giving illegal immigrants the right to live and work in the United States legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements, as Bush, in a compromise plan with Democrats, has proposed. But Republicans around the country oppose the idea by a 10-point margin, 53 percent to 43 percent.
Democrats, by contrast, favor it, by 57 percent to 38 percent.
Yet, the immigration plan may have something for everyone to dislike. Among people who support a legal status program, most Democrats and independents would not include a provision requiring illegal immigrants to return to their native country in order to apply to return legally. Republicans are much more apt to like that idea.
Welcome?
Overall, it's clear that most Americans are not anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant. While 55 percent think illegal immigrants do more to hurt than to help the United States, legal immigrants get a much warmer welcome: They're broadly - by 63 percent to 28 percent, or better than 2 to 1 - seen as helping the country.
In a departure from other political and ideological gaps, there's essentially no difference between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives, in the view that legal immigrants help the country. But there are differences in views of illegals; Republicans and conservatives view them negatively by especially wide margins.
In terms of legal entry for workers, there's modest support, 53 percent to 43 percent, for significantly expanding the guest worker program that provides temporary work visas to people from other countries - another part of the proposal. Support grows substantially - to 64 percent - if the program is targeted to specific industries in which the government determines there's a shortage of worker.
Skills
There's further division on another aspect of immigration reform - the idea of giving preference to legal immigrants who have needed skills, rather than to those who have a sibling, parent or grown child already living here legally. Overall, Americans split evenly on which is preferable - 35 percent for skills, 34 percent for family, with the rest further split between preferring both equally as criteria, or neither.
Among groups, women are 11 points more apt than men to stress family ties, while men are nine points more apt to focus on skills. And there are political splits here as well; in the sharpest gap, Republican men by 2 to 1, favor job skills more than family ties as a criterion for entry, while Democratic women take the opposite position, by a 13-point margin. (Substantial numbers of Republicans and conservatives - one in five - say neither should be a criterion.)
Age
Beyond politics, there are substantial differences among other groups in some views on immigration. In one notable division, young adults are much more favorably disposed toward illegal and legal immigrants, alike.
Younger adults are more than twice as likely as seniors to say illegal immigrants do more to help than to hurt the country. And by a 2 to 1 ratio - 64 percent to 33 percent - people age 18 to 29 support giving illegal immigrants the right to apply for legal status. That falls to about an even split among middle-age adults, and seniors oppose it by nearly a 20-point margin.
On legal immigration, Americans younger than age 40 broadly support significantly expanding the guest worker program, 61 percent to 34 percent. People 40 and older by contrast, divide evenly on the idea.
There are differences among other groups as well. The idea of a legal status program is somewhat less popular (although not broadly so) among less educated and lower income adults. And 55 percent of evangelical white Protestants (another core Republican group) oppose the idea, while, for comparison, 55 percent of nonevangelical white Protestants support it.
Unions
Some unions have viewed immigrants as competitors for jobs and a downward force on wages. The differences between people living in union and nonunion households is fairly muted - possibly reflecting the emergence of more immigrant-friendly service industry unions, with immigrant members.
Methodology
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 29, 2007 to June 1, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,205 adults, including an oversample of blacks, for a total of 284 black respondents. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
Click here for PDF version with full questionnaire and results.
Bush's Push on Immigration Tests His Base
Jim Rutenberg and Carl Hulse - NYTimes
Washington - President Bush's advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush's most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush's impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters - a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
"I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty," said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill's legalization process for immigrants. "We are not all that stupid."
This week, after Mr. Bush's suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan "don't want to do what's right for America" inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, "I just wish he hadn't done it because he's not going to lose me on Iraq, and he's not going to lose me on national security." He added, "But he might lose some of you."
Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.
White House officials said it had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.
The tensions, which have rippled through the Republican presidential field, are intensifying just as the Senate is preparing to renew debate on the measure next week. Opponents are seeking significant changes - or outright defeat of the legislation - and raising the specter of a filibuster. The battle has pitted the White House against a group that includes even Mr. Bush's reliable supporters from his home state of Texas, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans.
White House officials said it was a debate they welcomed in pursuit of a long-sought presidential goal, but in interviews this week, they expressed frustration at what they described as ill-informed criticism that the bill provided amnesty for illegal immigrants when it in fact traded legal status for fines and fees - more than $6,000 for green card holders, officials said. They also noted that the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed 66 percent of Republicans supported its legalization provisions.
Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, said Friday he was confident that the White House would win over its critics as it explained the details of the bill and the administration's continuing efforts to enforce existing border control laws.
Mr. Rove said he did not think that anger over immigration within the party would affect support for the president on the war and other national security issues. "People are able to say, 'I don't need to agree with anyone 100 percent of the time to be with them on the most important issue facing America,'" he said.
But that same day, Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal opinion writer and former Reagan speechwriter who has supported Mr. Bush, said, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them," in a column under the heading, "President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder."
Democrats have their own serious differences on immigration, with many worried that the Senate plan is too punitive. Others who are closely allied with labor are fearful about the impact on job opportunities, and still others oppose any plan that allows illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. But the Democratic divisions have been all but lost in the loud and volatile clashes among Republicans.
Reflecting the division between the business wing, Congressional moderates and the rest of the party, the editorial board of National Review, which opposes the legislation, has issued a debate challenge to The Journal's business-minded editorial board, which is more supportive. (The Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, dismissed the challenge, saying National Review writers had not accepted offers to appear on The Journal's program on Fox to discuss the matter.)
Opposition to Mr. Bush's immigration plan, which calls for a way to legalize illegal workers who are here now, has been stiff for years. But last year, when similar legislation was under debate, opponents were rightly confident that Republican leaders who controlled Congress would not let it progress. Mr. Bush, not wishing to intensify the fight in an election year, stayed behind the scenes and relented when the legislation died.
Not so this year, when Mr. Bush's personal involvement in brokering a bipartisan immigration deal, and his clear determination to push for its passage, has intensified criticism from grass-roots and legislative leaders of his own party to the highest levels of his presidency. The criticism reflects a central tension between Mr. Bush's pursuit of a defining domestic policy accomplishment and the party's concerns about its 2008 prospects when base voters are so angry about immigration.
Mr. Bush's comments to federal law enforcement trainees in Georgia on Tuesday, in which he took the rare step of going after conservative critics in terms usually reserved for Democrats, has charged the Republican ferment, specifically his suggestion that those opposed to the plan "don't want to do what's right for America."
Presidential aides said later that Mr. Bush did not mean to impugn anyone's patriotism, and that he had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.
But days later, Mr. Cornyn still seemed rankled. "I honestly don't know whether it was scripted or unscripted," he said. "But I think it was uncalled for."
In its online editorial in which it challenged The Wall Street Journal to a debate, National Review referred to an Internet video on The Journal's Web site of an editorial board meeting in which Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor, referred to what he calls "the degree to which the right isn't even rational about this anymore." National Review wrote, "It shouldn't be a problem for The Journal's editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren't 'rational' on the question."
The debate has bled into the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, providing fodder for one of the sharpest exchanges so far, between Senator John McCain of Arizona, who supports the bill, and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who has come out against it.
Caught in the middle of the broader fight, the Republican National Committee has seemed to have taken less of a supporting role than on other White House initiatives, though Senator Mel Martinez, chairman of the committee and a strong backer of the compromise, said its support was unwavering.
(Republican Party officials disputed parts of a report in The Washington Times linking a decision to fire dozens of phone bank employees to a decline in small donations that the paper reported was partly caused by disaffection over immigration.)
The Republican vs. Republican debate has also played out intensively for lawmakers back home. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a critic of the measure, said he had heard from people who were upset not only with the legislation, but also with his Republican colleague from the state, Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the measure's architects. "I discourage that kind of talk," Mr. DeMint said. "We are good friends, and he is a great senator. We are just in disagreement on this particular issue."
The Republican and conservative critiques on the Internet are not so polite. "Bush has turned on his own people, his political supporters," wrote a visitor to a message board on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com. Another visitor wrote, "Why have I cared that liberals not attempt to impeach this man? He's gone crazy."
Mr. Rove and Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said officials would continue trying to persuade critics.
And some White House allies were trying to cool tensions. Mr. McCain, who had a salty clash with Mr. Cornyn over the legislation when it was being drafted, said Friday, "The president, and all of us, feel frustrated sometimes by the criticism and the level of the dialogue," adding, "I wish we could lift up the level of discourse and dialogue."
The president's brother, Jeb Bush, and his former campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal pleading the case for the legislation, saying that the debate, "has led many close personal and ideological friends - people we respect and whose criticism we take seriously - to oppose new rules governing how people enter this country and how we handle those who are here illegally. But we hope our friends reconsider."
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Des Moines. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us