A Third Pro-Immigration Poll Atrocity!



Once more unto the
breach, dear friends, once more.


King
Henry V
,

Shakespeare

When

Peter Brimelow
suggested I write a third

article
on

disingenuous pro-immigration polling
, I groaned.

But there`s nothing like reading the latest
well-financed lies of the Open Borders Establishment to,
in the words of Prince Hal before Agincourt,


Stiffen the sinews,
summon up the blood


Disguise fair nature
with hard-favour`d rage.

 

As an old marketing researcher, I can now say that the
mainstream media`s immigration surveys belong in a Hall
of Shame of how not to perform objective opinion
research.

Latest example: the Wall Street Journal`s June
15th article (in the

news
section, not, surprisingly enough, on
the

Editorial Page
) on a recent WSJ/NBC News poll
of 1002 people:


Public Warms to Bush Immigration Stance


"WASHINGTON — Add
this to the list of things that have gone right lately
for President Bush: Americans appear to be drawing
closer to his view on the immigration debate…


"By 50%-33%, the
survey shows, Americans support the views expressed by
President Bush and also by businesses, Hispanics and
Democratic leaders: that

steps to strengthen border security
should be
combined with a guest-worker program for prospective
immigrants and those who have been in the U.S. for at
least two years."

There are multiple layers of falsehoods here. Let`s
begin by looking at the wording of the actual

question
(PDF) from which the WSJ writer
draws these broad conclusions:


"28. When it comes to
the immigration bill, the Senate and the House of
Representatives disagree with one another about what
should be done on the issue of illegal immigration.


"Many in the House of
Representatives favor strengthening security at the
borders, including building a seven-hundred-mile fence
along the border with Mexico to help keep illegal
immigrants from entering the United States, and they
favor deporting immigrants who are already in the United
States illegally.


"Many in the Senate
favor strengthening security at the borders, including
building a three-hundred-and-seventy-mile fence along
the border with Mexico to help keep illegal immigrants
from entering the United States, and they favor a guest
worker program to allow illegal immigrants who have jobs
and who have been here for more than two years to remain
in the United States.


"Which of these
approaches would you prefer?"

As you may have noticed, this is intentionally
misleading. The paragraph about the Senate`s approach is
not at all

what the Senate actually passed
way back on May
25th.

The WSJ/NBC News pollsters had more than two
weeks before their polling began on June 9th to find out
what was in the Senate`s

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
and describe
the actual legislation to respondents. But instead, they
asked about a fantasy version of S2611 that they
concocted to elicit approval.

The researchers chose duplicitously to conflate the
Senate`s

amnesty for current illegal immigrants
with the
Senate`s guest worker program for future newcomers from
overseas. (They probably wanted to use "guest worker"
as a euphemism for "amnesty", a term that they
know is a loser with the

public.
)

The most rational interpretation of the survey`s
sentence about the Senate bill is that

current illegals
, rather than be

immediately deported,
would become guest workers.
Since the definition of a guest is someone who comes
and,

sooner or later
, goes, the survey`s
description makes it sound like current illegal aliens
and their employers would be given a number of years to
make new arrangements, after which the illegals would
then leave the country.

Unfortunately, while that might sound like a reasonable
compromise to you or me (although it`s probably not
feasible), it`s not what President Bush and Senator
Kennedy want at all. They want the illegals to
stay.

Amusingly (or, perhaps, infuriatingly), reporter Harwood
[email
him
] spun this survey result in his WSJ
article as proving public support for "a guest-worker
program for prospective immigrants"
. But in reality,
the pollsters` description of the guest worker plan
never mentioned newcomers
—just "illegal
immigrants who have jobs and who have been here for more
than two years."

It`s bad enough for the WSJ`s pollsters to ask a
fraudulent question. [Vdare.com
note:
The story quotes "Democratic pollster
Peter Hart, (
email
him
) who helps conduct the
Journal/NBC survey."

]
But for the WSJ reporter then to announce
the results support the real legislation the newspaper
was afraid to ask about in the first place is such an
exquisite refinement on run-of-the-mill dishonesty that
it would require the imagination of a

Dante
to dream up an appropriate punishment.

And that`s just scratching the surface of the falsehoods
and spin in the survey and in Harwood`s article:

  • Despite the poll`s
    implication, the new immigrant guest workers won`t
    even be from Latin America. The program is

    likely to import large numbers of Asians
    , who
    (employers tell us) have a "lower
    runaway rate
    "
    . Mexicans will be encouraged
    to continue to immigrate illegally, in the way that
    has proved so convenient to America`s elites over
    the last thirty years.

  • Of course, as

    VDARE.com readers
    but few others know, language
    in the Senate bill assures that the "guest"
    workers wouldn`t be guests because they could easily
    become legal permanent residents.

  • And, funny thing,
    the WSJ poll doesn`t mention that guest
    workers would be allowed to bring in their

    dependents
    —spouses and children.

  • And it forgets to
    point out how the American public would pay to

    heal
    and

    educate
    the guest workers and/or their families.

  • Nor does it point
    out that

    any children
    born to guest workers while in the
    U.S. will be American citizens because of the
    current "citizen child"

    misinterpretation
    of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Still, underneath all the spin, there are still some
nuggets of useful data in the WSJ/NBC News polls
if you pore over the results for registered voters:

  • Illegal
    immigration is now the first or second highest
    priority of 28 percent of registered voters
    , up
    from 24 percent in April. It`s tied for second with
    health care, behind only the war in Iraq, and ahead
    of such perennial powerhouse issues as the economy,
    the

    price of gasoline
    , and terrorism.

  • In a different
    list of issues, illegal immigration is second
    only to Iraq
    in "deciding your vote for
    Congress this November"
    .


  • Fifty percent of
    registered voters

    said they would be more likely to vote for a

    candidate for Congress
    who favors "building a
    fence along the border with Mexico"
    . Only 26
    percent would be less likely.

  • In contrast, even
    with its phony wording, "a guest worker program
    for illegal immigrants who have been in the United
    States

    at least two years"
    is ahead only 40 – 34.

  • Even Harwood
    admits:


"Among Americans
calling immigration a top-tier issue, 72% say they are
more likely to back a candidate seeking a

fence along the Mexican border
, while just 37% say
they are more likely to support one who favors a
guest-worker program."

In other words, among the sizable number of Americans
who care enough to cast votes based on immigration, a

fence wins in a landslide
over the Kennedy/Bush
approach.

  • Among Republicans,
    Independents, and Others, "
    Not
    doing enough
    to deal with illegal immigration"

    comes in second with 30 percent among the items that
    "cause you the most concern about the Republican
    Party"
    . (#1: not controlling federal spending
    and deficits—with only 32 percent). Only eight
    percent listed "going too far in dealing with
    illegal immigration"
    as a source of unease about
    the GOP.

  • Amazingly, even
    among Democrats and Independents, "not doing
    enough to deal with illegal immigration"
    is tied
    for second with 19 percent as a cause for concern
    with the Democratic Party. It trailed only "too
    willing to increase taxes and spending"
    at 22
    percent.

Despite all this pollaganda, the plain fact is that
getting tough on illegal immigration is a winning issue
in American politics.

It was for

California Governor Pete Wilson in 1994.

It was for victorious GOP House candidate

Brian Bilbray
earlier this month.

Bilbray drove the message home when he was sworn in:


"`There was one issue
and only one issue that allowed me to be elected,` Mr.
Bilbray said… `It was the fact the people in the 50th
District wanted something done, they wanted a job and a
message sent to Washington that now and here is the time
to address illegal immigration.`

The only question is: how long can the

bipartisan
political Establishment go on lying about
t?


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]