Nevadans support illegal immigration crackdown

A whopping 85 percent of likely Republican primary voters would support an Arizona-like law in Nevada to crack down on illegal immigrants, according to a new poll that shows why GOP candidates in the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races have rushed to praise the border state.

Law enforcement authorities would be able to ask suspected illegal immigrants about their legal status if stopped or arrested for some other reason, according to the new Arizona law.

The Mason-Dixon poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal asked likely GOP primary voters whether they would support or oppose having Nevada enact a similar law. Only 8 percent were opposed while another 7 percent were undecided, according to the survey.

The telephone poll of 500 likely GOP primary voters was taken Monday and Tuesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Most Republicans in the hotly contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races have said Arizona was right to pass the law because the federal government hasn't done a good job of securing the long and porous U.S.-Mexico border and preventing people from coming across illegally.

Some candidates such as Danny Tarkanian and Chad Christensen in the U.S. Senate race have gone further, saying a law should be passed to eliminate "incentives" for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S., such as free education for children and emergency and other health care services.

Christensen has pushed the hardest, launching an initiative petition to ask voters to approve an Arizona-like law after Gov. Jim Gibbons refused his request to call a special legislative session.

Christensen, who is running in the back of the pack of top GOP contenders, said he may not meet a June deadline to get the 92,000-plus signatures needed to get the measure on the November ballot, but he would continue to push the issue whether he wins or loses the June 8 primary.

The Republican Gibbons, who is in a tough re-election race, has taken the most cautious position. He has said he supports Arizona's action but sees no need for such a law in Nevada since it's not a border state dealing with illegal immigrants who are criminals in the cross-border drug wars.

His opponents, former North Las Vegas Mayor Michael Montandon and former federal Judge Brian Sandoval, both said they supported the Arizona law, which could be a risky position for Sandoval, who has been seeking the vote of Hispanics, who largely don't back such legislation.

Critics say the Arizona law could lead to racial profiling, or stopping people based on their looks alone.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, who is facing a difficult re-election battle and needs the Hispanic vote, has called on moving to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. His Democratic Party proposal would focus on improving border security, but also could provide a path to U.S. citizenship for some of the estimated 12 million illegal residents living in the United States.

Reid has said he wants to bring illegal residents "out of the shadows" but also would require them to pay back taxes and penalties before going to the back of the line to seek U.S. citizenship.

Contact Laura Myers at lmyers@ reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

Trending topics:

• gubernatorial
• illegal immigration
• Laura Myers
• Mason-Dixon poll
• Republican primary
• Senate

Comments

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

1. Greg May 14, 2010 | 2:16 p.m. Report Abuse

   RE: Apache Warrior
   
   Funny, enjoyable post.
   
   Maybe when the Indian tribes consolidate enough wealth from regional casinos to buy into the Vegas Strip Corridor it will be Indian leadership that returns quality of life to Southern Nevada while providing sustainable, loyal hospitality jobs, without Nevada exporting social costs to other states while making record revenues for years.
   
   Don't forget the Comanche. Quanah Parker and General McKenzie wound up close friends after making peace. They might want to buy in as post humous partners.

2. G.Wiz May 14, 2010 | 12:08 p.m. Report Abuse

   What kills me about conservatives, GOP'sters, and the right wing is that while they decry Gov't programs and handouts, they are often the biggest recipients of them. If they work at any medical or medical related facility...a large part of their pay comes from medicaid, medicare, or social security. Their parents or themselves are on Social security. They gripe about bailouts...but they run and get new cars or houses...to get that tax rebate. They don't hesitate to cash those section eight checks they get on their rentals. (while griping about the 'unentitled' out of the other side of their mouths.) So if you don't want to seem hypocritical about those Gov't handouts and perks you also recieve....then you ought to not recieve them, or at least acknowledge that they are helping you. The truth is....freedom isn't free so shut up and pay your taxes. That's why they call it 'civilization' (unless you want to move to somewhere you can 'john wayne' it and shoot your way out into a better quality of life.) America and most Americans...thank God...see the bigger picture.
   
   'America does not let its needy citizens fend for themselves'
   Christopher Reeve

3. John.Pierson May 14, 2010 | 3:37 a.m. Report Abuse

   Perhaps its the way I look at things or perhaps its exactly what I think it is. In my humble opinion, it is so chic to be in the moment that we lost all connection to past and future. Like smelling sour milk and returning it to the refrigerator expecting fresh milk next time, we treat consequences as surprise problems. In a civil suit, the guilt or We dismissed rules of civility as violations of our rights.
   But the courts have not dismissed rules. In a civil case actions are assessed by what a reasonable and prudent person would do in similar circumstances.
   Lets assess actions with potential tragic consequences. Start with the question: "Would a reasonable and prudent adult of average intellect...?
   1. Groom themselves or surf the internet while driving their sole means of transport, with their kids, thru narrow passages full of obstacles at speeds approaching 100mph.
   1A... pass 8 cars piled up (insured/uninsured)on the road they speed to work daily, send a text describing the accident to a friend as obvious carelessness.
   1B.. be so happy about rising insurance costs due to # of claims that they send a thank you text to their broker while speeding home after work (same road).
   2. be excited to save $8 in cash wages by spending $28 in funding social services.
   3. demand that people in another country speak english so when they move there its easier than learning the language of their new home, what with all the stress of moving and everything.
   4. endorse crime so crimials and their families would vote for them.
   5. tell their God "thanks , but we won't be needing your services any longer".
   6. expect crime to decrease by not caring a bit about their fellow man.
   8. really believe that what happened here stayed here. OF COURSE NOT

Read All Comments