Author Topic: 70% in Massachusetts Favor Ban on Public Benefits For Illegal Immigrants  (Read 1255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Confederate Kahanist

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 10767
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/70_in_massachusetts_favor_ban_on_public_benefits_for_illegal_immigrants




Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters in Massachusetts oppose a boycott of Arizona like the one just passed by Boston City Council to protest that state’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Thirty-four percent (34%) favor such a boycott, while another 16% are undecided.

But just 41% favor a law like Arizona’s that empowers local police to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. Forty-eight percent (48%) oppose such a law. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Nationally, 58% support a law like the one recently adopted in Arizona.

(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.

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Massachusetts was conducted on May 10, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Bay State voters are at least somewhat concerned that a law like Arizona’s might violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens while 30% don’t share that concern. Those figures include 40% who are Very Concerned and 11% who are Not At All Concerned.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) favor a welcoming immigration policy that only excludes “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.” Just 23% disagree with such a policy. This is comparable to findings among voters nationwide.

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday criticized the public benefits proposal and denounced the Arizona bill, saying he would veto a similar law if passed by the state legislature. However, he also said the state would not follow Boston’s example and divest state funds from Arizona as a protest.

His two chief opponents for governor, Republican Charlie Banker and Democrat-turned-independent Tim Cahill, both favor the legislation barring illegal immigrants from public benefits. Cahill has defended the Arizona law; Baker has not commented in detail on it.

Patrick now earns 45% of the vote in his bid for reelection to Baker’s 31% and Cahill’s 14%.

Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party overwhelmingly support the proposal that would stop illegal immigrants from getting public benefits, as do 53% of Democrats.

But 52% of Democratic voters favor a boycott of Arizona, while 74% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliateds oppose it.

When it comes to having a law like Arizona’s, however, 64% of GOP voters are in favor of it, but 68%of Democrats are opposed. Among unaffiliated voters in Massachusetts, 46% favor such a law, while 39% oppose it.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Chad M ~ Your rebel against white guilt

Offline Ben Yehuda

  • Director Of Marketing
  • Master JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 1412
Well then maybe they should vote for a Republican once in awhile.

Offline Hyades

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1417
If we did it in Europe, most of the social welfare systems would be saved in one night only! I think the same goes for the US. How is it logical to attract parasites into the country who only live on social transfers? For demographic reasons? Yeah great, instead of a small rich population you have a huge, illiterate and poor population transofrming the country into filthy 3rd World and even worse!  >:(
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 10:29:40 AM by Hyades »

Offline Confederate Kahanist

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 10767
Well then maybe they should vote for a Republican once in awhile.

The Republicans can just be as bad sometimes even though they don't have anyone with the likes of grijalva.
Chad M ~ Your rebel against white guilt