The Harvard-Harris Poll, taken in the run-up to the government shutdown, even found huge support for cutting the level of legal immigration, which stands at more than 1 million a year, to less than half that.

The findings challenge the Gang of Six immigration deal Democrats and some Republicans tried to push through the Senate last week, only to see their efforts derailed by Mr. Trump.

That plan, authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Richard Durbin, a Democrat, called for a generous legalization for Dreamers, a small downpayment on Mr. Trump’s border wall and no significant changes to chain migration. The plan would have eliminated the visa lottery, but pumped those visas back into the legal immigration system to be used for a new amnesty for people from countries that suffered natural disasters.

Mr. Graham over the weekend said senators will never accept a deal that cuts the overall level of immigration, but the new poll says that’s exactly what Americans want.

The survey asked respondents what number they would like to see. A stunning 35 percent said legal immigration should be 250,000 a year or less, while another 19 percent said it should be between 250,000 and 500,000. Combined, they make up a majority looking for a cut of at least 50 percent over current annual levels. Another 18 percent said they want to see between 500,000 and 1 million.

Just 19 percent said they want to see an increase over 1 million.

Mr. Trump hasn’t said recently what legal immigration number he wants to see, but he has been vocal on changing the way the U.S. picks immigrants. He says skills and ability to assimilate in the U.S. should be weighted over extended family ties.

And the new poll says voters agree, by a 79-21 margin.

That’s even bigger than the 77-23 margin that supports legalization for Dreamers.

More than 60 percent of voters said current border security is “inadequate,” and 54 percent said they support “building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.”

The poll was taken Jan. 17-19, of 980 adult Americans.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/shock-poll-us-wants-massive-cuts-legal-immigration/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

But the Overton window hasnth shifthed!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211792)

i continue to believe this MSM line is fucking bullshit caused by intentionally twisted questions to arrive at the result lib media pollsters want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211871)

and then they do live polling

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35213304)

Just 19 percent said they want to see an increase over 1 million.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211800)

I wouldn't move to Austria only to hope it gets filled with non-Austrians

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211951)

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/bioleninism-the-first-step/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212051)

There’s a reason why there’s so many evil fat women in government. Where else would they be if government didn’t want them? They have nothing going on for them, except their membership in the Democratic party machine. The party gives them all they have, the same way the Communist party had given everything to that average peasant kid who became a middling bureaucrat in Moscow. And don’t even get me started with hostile Muslims or Transexuals. Those people used to be expelled or taken into asylums, pre-1960. Which is why American Progressivism likes them so much. The little these people have depends completely on the Left’s patronage. There’s a devil’s bargain there: the more naturally repulsive someone else, the more valuable it is as a party member, as its loyalty will be all the stronger. This is of course what’s behind Larry Auster’s First Law of minority relations: the worse a group behaves, the more the Left likes it.

This is also why the Left today is the same Left that was into Soviet Communism back in the day. What they approve of today would scandalize any 1920s Leftist. Even 1950s Leftist. But it’s all the same thing, following the same incentives: how to build a cohesive ruling class to monopolize state power. It used to be class struggle. Now it’s gender-struggle and ethnic struggle. Ethnic struggle works in America because immigrants have no territorial power base, unlike in Russia or China. So the old game of giving status to low-status minorities works better than ever. It works even better, unlike Lenin’s Russia, America has now access to every single minority on earth. Which is why the American left is busy importing as many Somalis as they can. The lowest performing minority on earth. Just perfect. <<

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212085)

it's hard for me to sit and read a book with how much i have going on every day :( i try to read shorter stuff like articles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212096)

i will tell you this. i am reminded of something bill clinton said at some globalist meeting around 2015 or 2016. they were talking about development, whatever. and he offhandedly said something to the effect of "why doesnt america take like 200k syrian refugees, give them detroit and give them money to revitalize it?" he was just spitballing, but that's REALLY telling of the mentality. syrians are more worth being given resources than the americans already in detroit. he caught hell for it in "woke" communities. these are the kinda of people who say shit like 1+MM. they've given up on black and brown americans and want to mulligan with arabs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211858)

By DAVID D. LAITIN and MARC JAHRMAY 14, 2015

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Share

Tweet

Email

More

Save

466

Photo

Credit Adam Maida

Detroit, a once great city, has become an urban vacuum. Its population has fallen to around 700,000 from nearly 1.9 million in 1950. The city is estimated to have more than 70,000 abandoned buildings and 90,000 vacant lots. Meanwhile, desperate Syrians, victims of an unfathomable civil war, are fleeing to neighboring countries, with some 1.8 million in Turkey and 600,000 in Jordan.

Suppose these two social and humanitarian disasters were conjoined to produce something positive.

Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, has already laid the groundwork. In January 2014 he called for an infusion of 50,000 immigrants as part of a program to revitalize Detroit, and signed an executive order creating the Michigan Office for New Americans.

Syrian refugees would be an ideal community to realize this goal, as Arab-Americans are already a vibrant and successful presence in the Detroit metropolitan area. A 2003 survey by the University of Michigan of 1,016 members of this community (58 percent of whom were Christian, and 42 percent Muslim) found that 19 percent were entrepreneurs and that the median household income was $50,000 to $75,000 per year.

What confidence can we have that traumatized war refugees can be transformed into budding American entrepreneurs? We cannot know for sure. But recent evidence of recaptured children from the clutches of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and victims of violent crime across five continents reveals that they become more active citizens than similar compatriots who have not suffered from these traumatic events. In the Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordan, Syrians, despite psychological scars and limited resources, have set up 3,500 shops, stores and other businesses.

Refugees resettled from a single war zone have helped revitalize several American communities, notably Hmong in previously neglected neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Bosnians in Utica, N.Y., and Somalis in Lewiston, Me.

Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

r May 18, 2015

Well I think this is a great idea .. if they want to come it's fine with me. A population from a war torn country would thrive with some...

Bear Essentials May 15, 2015

After you screen out the would-be terrorists and people with zero education who would not assimilate well at all, there are thousands of...

Gina May 15, 2015

Clear these two have never been to Detroit - or at least recently.1. Much of the housing stock is not in move in condition - or really...

SEE ALL COMMENTS

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Resettling Syrians in Detroit would require commitment and cooperation across different branches and levels of our government, but it is eminently feasible. President Obama and Congress would have to agree to lift this year’s refugee ceiling by 50,000. The State Department, which handles overseas processing of refugees, would need to open offices at the camps in Jordan and Turkey, determine eligibility and administer a lottery for resettlement. Homeland Security, which controls the borders, would have to carry out accelerated security checks, as has been done in the past for Vietnamese and for Iranian religious minorities. Health and Human Services would need an expansion in the $1.5 billion it budgets for refugee resettlement.

The Treasury Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development could also help. The Home Affordable Modification Program, part of the 2008 federal bailout of financial institutions, was meant to help places hardest hit by home-price declines. But the program has not been fully utilized, in part because of stringent oversight requirements. Cities like Detroit have gotten permission to use funds from the program to demolish abandoned properties and create parks and green spaces. But it would be better to spend the money on helping refugees renovate once-abandoned homes.

Finally, grants from the federal government and from philanthropic foundations would be needed to help the local Arab-American community supply social services for the newcomers.

Opinion Today

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Sign Up

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME

Of course, local buy-in is a sine qua non. Refugees are by no means the only source for the regeneration of Detroit. Its more settled populations, including African-Americans and Latinos, are bringing great energy and resources to the city’s renewal. But Syrians would bring new vigor and catalyze its nascent recovery.

Some skeptics will point to the difficulties of assimilation, noting past concerns in the Detroit area about the integration of Iraqi refugees. But there is no evidence to suggest that the Detroit area is a powder keg of anti-immigrant sentiment. Quite the contrary: From its original Native Americans to the Great Migration of Southern blacks to the infusion of Hispanic and Arab immigrants, Detroit has been a melting pot of religions, ethnicities and cultures.

In 2013, the city, which has a higher proportion of black residents than any large city in America, elected its first white mayor in more than 40 years. The following year, the city showed remarkable resilience and unity in emerging from municipal bankruptcy, with a reorganization plan that, among other things, preserved the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts and gave the city space to invest in long-neglected public services.

Other skeptics will say that the plan would fail because the most ambitious Syrians would leave the city once they achieved economic security. There would be no legal way to prohibit this, of course. But the Syrians would be in the region with one of the most established Arab populations in America, surely an incentive to put down roots. Moreover, if small business and home-ownership loans were extended, the refugees would have a financial incentive to remain.

Finally, some will call this plan politically dead on arrival, given skepticism toward immigration, particularly in the Republican Party. But it’s worth noting that the 2003 study of the community found that two-thirds of respondents said they had voted for George W. Bush in 2000; refugee populations with traditional social views and a knack for entrepreneurship are not going to make Michigan less of a campaign battleground.

More important, both parties can agree that resettling destitute, innocent refugees is consistent with America’s moral and ethical commitments; it would send a powerful message to President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State and the world about American compassion and ingenuity.

Are the benefits to Detroit, to a devastated Syrian population, and to American ideals worth overcoming the expenses and administrative complexity of this proposal? We think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/opinion/let-syrians-settle-detroit.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212011)

personally, yes. but i know some hardliners aint even entertaining that. just judging the zeitgiest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35211999)

also...i think limiting to the current applicants or even making a window for apps...that would work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212121)

During the shutdown, I barely saw the media even touch on or explain what DACA is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212111)

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-daca-future/static/img/daca-age-24.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35213365)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3867641&forum_id=2#35212729)