Front Page  »  

California opposes sanctuary cities, Berkeley poll suggests

March 28, 2017

Californians are overwhelmingly opposed to sanctuary city immigration policies, according to a poll commissioned by UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies (IGS). As a caveat, the director of IGS notes 99.5 percent of participants in the poll were citizens, and the survey was only conducted in English.

Between Aug. 11 and Aug. 26, Survey Sampling International conducted the poll on behalf of UC Berkeley, sampling 1,098 respondents. Of those polled, 74 percent said local authorities should not be allowed to ignore federal detainer requests. The other 26 percent supported the sanctuary city policy of preventing local police and sheriff’s officials from honoring immigration holds.

The poll results indicate Californians across the political spectrum and among all major ethnic groups oppose sanctuary city policies. The policy of ignoring federal detainer requests was opposed by 73 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of independents, according to UC Berkley.

Additionally, 65 percent of Latinos, 75 percent of Asian and African Americans and 80 percent of whites opposed sanctuary city policies.

“We found very broad-based opposition to the idea of sanctuary cities,” said Jack Citrin, the director of IGS and a UC Berkeley political science professor who has studies immigration for years. “Californians want their local officials to abide by the requests of federal authorities.”

In order to gauge the impact of a recent high-profile incident on Californians’ sentiments, Survey Sampling International told half the participants about the killing of Cal Poly grad Kate Steinle, including the fact that the alleged killer was an illegal immigrant who had been previously deported several times and recently released from jail. The other half of participants were not told about the Steinle case.

The results showed the Steinle murder had relatively little impact on Californians’ views on sanctuary cities.

Of those who were only asked about policy, 71 percent said cities should not be allowed to ignore federal detainer requests. Among those who were told about the Steinle shooting, 76 percent said they were opposed to sanctuary city policies.


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

” As a caveat, the director of IGS notes 99.5 percent of participants in the poll were citizens, and the survey was only conducted in English.” Says it all right there. As indicated by the director undermining the validity of his own survey. The self styled “progressive left” is not interested in what the citizens of a democratic state want. The concept of a sovereign nation is anathema. Nothing less than the destruction of the United States of America to be replaced be an international one world corporatocracy. It will not look like one big United States of the World. Wake up people. We are at war.


0

What is the idea behind sanctuary cities? What is the motivation? Why is this aspect never discussed in the media? Does anybody out there know why?


0

simple really, cheap labor and a stream of new voters…


0

Bingo! That and a permanent underclass which will always be beholden to government programs. Politicians love that.


0

Also, don’t forgot many agencies get taxpayer funds for every person they have in their system, illegal or legal. Schools get money for every student, legal or illegal, and that money helps to keep their beast going. And yes, those receiving the taxpayer money would certainly never vote to end it, same goes for public sector and the bankrupted pension system. They will never vote to fix it, they just want the pyramid to stay up until they get theirs.


0

Groups of people that can be easily manipulated for “use” by liberal elites wanting to create a socialized(socialism), controllable, dependent populous. U.S. History shows that when “legal” immigration occurs, those groups within 1 or 2 generations are thriving!


0

I want to live in a sanctuary city which protects us from paying state taxes.


0

75% of the nation opposes sanctuary cities. When was the last time 75% of us agreed on anything? And the more Governor Brown and others try to convince us otherwise the more their popularity will diminish.


0

Governor Brown doesn’t really care about his popularity with us “regular” CA residents, otherwise he wouldn’t still be trying to force a non-bullet train on us. For him it’s all about putting his name on something.


0

The “non-bullet train” (as you call it) came in to being thanks to a majority of citizens voting for the proposition funding it in 2008 while Arnold was the governator. Jerry Brown didn’t become Governor Brown II until 2011.


You can blame Jerry Brown for a lot of things, but the genesis of the bullet train is not one of them. That you can squarely blame on the citizens of this state.


0

You seem to forget, what was voted on and approved back in 2008 is not what is being built now by Governor Brown.


0

I know that there have been some minor changes — the kind you expect with any major project — but what do you see as major changes initiated by or supported by Brown?


I think the whole thing was an idiotic idea from the start just given the difficulty of obtaining right-of-way at reasonable costs. But I am unaware of any significant role played by Jerry Brown in either passing the proposition or in adding major changes.


0

How about the re-directing of road maintenance money into his train instead of fixing roads?


0

Jerry Brown thought Rose Bird would be a great Chief Justice…and like the idea of sanctuary cities, he couldn’t be more wrong.

This seemingly mindless thinking manifests itself in not believing in personal responsibility accountability, or a willingness to pay ones dues in life.

It’s this thinking that has severely tarnished the once Golden State.


0

Can you tell us all why Justice Bird was recalled?


0

Because of dereliction of duty on her part.she was substituting her own opinions and ideas for the laws and precedents upon which judicial decisions are supposed to be made.

In EVERY capital case (over 60) heard by the supreme court during her tenure NOT once did she vote to uphold a death sentence.


0