Another Amnesty Atrocity: Immigration Enthusiasts Torture Helpless Poll Questions!


ignominious reversal
nine days ago of the Senate`s
cave-in on illegal immigration doesn`t mean the danger
is over. The Open Borders/Cheap Labor/Reconquista
coalition remains in control of the corporate media and
is thus well-situated to try to use the

illegal alien

in the streets
to intimidate America.

For example, the Rupert

Weekly Standard
to pound the drums for the neocon Grand Strategy of

. Editor Bill
Kristol displayed his contempt for patriotic
conservatives alarmed by illegal immigration in his
notoriously febrile April 10th editorial "Y
for Yahoo
Kristol`s disdain for the average
American, whose sons are doing most of the


in Kristol`s war in Iraq, is manifest, as
blogger Mickey Kaus pointed out in "S
for Snob

Two weeks later in the Weekly
, bootlicking Bush acolyte Fred Barnes,
author of the

unintentionally comic
paean to the President,
, announced in "Bordering
on a Victory
that "The immigration issue has
flipped in President Bush`s favor."
Barnes claimed

upshot is that an immigration bill appears likely (but
not certain) to pass when Congress returns from its
Easter recess on April 24–and probably in a
"comprehensive" form congenial to Bush and Republican
congressional leaders."

As evidence, Barnes quotes:

[Senate Judiciary] committee acted, `the
polls, indeed the whole atmosphere, changed to the
pro-immigrant side," says Jeffrey Bell, a

Republican consultant
working for La Raza, the
Hispanic civil rights group."

Note whom Barnes` trusted source
Bell is working for: La Raza! In English, of course,
"La Raza"
means "The
, a term

promoted by the Mexican government
to assert the
claim that mestizos are the racially superior

ideal mixture
of the best of the Indian and white

So what about the new polls
supposedly supporting the cave-in?

For decades,
voter surveys have consistently shown that the public is
outraged by the extent of illegal immigration. For
example, in a

CBS News poll last October
, 75 percent said
the government was

“not doing enough”

to keep out illegal aliens, while 15 percent
were satisfied and merely 4 percent thought efforts were
too restrictive.

Obviously, this is not a
satisfactory result from the point of view of the Open
Borders/Cheap Labor/Reconquista coalition.  Fortunately
for them, when it comes to specific mechanisms for
enforcing this broad consensus, there is ample room to
confuse and mislead the public by torturing the poll

I spent over a decade and a half in
the marketing research industry, and I`ve learned how
hard it is to conduct a survey that elicits honest
answers on any topic, much less one where the media
routinely denigrates one side as "yahoos".
For example, merely having employees with accents
conduct the questioning is likely to bias the answers
severely, since most Americans are quite polite.

The plain fact is, however, that in
the privacy of the voting booth, 56 percent of Arizonans
voted for Proposition 200 to crack down on illegal
immigration in 2004, just as 59 percent of Californians
voted for Proposition 187 in 1994.

The liberal

Los Angeles Times
has gotten a lot of publicity
lately for its April 13th poll, which strikes me as a
classic example of writing questions to get the
responses you wanted. In the marketing research
business, you`d lose clients by doing work so shoddy,
but this poll suits the Times` agenda. [Most
Back Tighter Border and a Guest-Worker Plan
Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer April 13,

Let`s look in detail at the three
proposals offered:

a guest-worker program that would give a temporary visa
to noncitizens who want to legally work in the U.S.

Support: 54%


know: 25%

There are several obvious problems
with this question.

  • The word "legally" serves
    no logical purpose in the question. Instead, its role
    is to distract opponents of illegal immigration, to
    convey the message: "These aren`t illegal aliens
    we`re talking about! These are people who want to work
    legally. Legally."

  • The word "noncitizens" is
    intentionally vague. Exactly who are these
    people who would get the temporary visas?

    Legally resident noncitizens
    already in America?

    Illegal aliens?
    Foreigners living in their own
    countries? There`s no way to tell. You are invited to
    agree with whatever policy you believe is being
    advocated here.

  • Most hopelessly confusing of
    all, however, is that this statement could well be
    interpreted, quite rationally, as calling for mass
    deportations. This proposal is for a "temporary
    for a "guest-worker" who will be here
    "legally". The

    essential attribute
    of a "guest"
    is that

    eventually he leaves.
    This emphasis on the limited
    duration of the guest-worker`s stay in America
    logically implies a mechanism for making him

    when his temporary visa expires—in other

    . Delayed deportation, but deportation
    nonetheless … which would be much stricter than the

    current system

    Ollie Ollie Home Free
    once the illegal immigrant
    penetrate a few dozen miles north of the border.

Without a system of deportation,
this whole proposal is fraudulent.

Now, you know and I know, and the
people proposing a guest worker program know, that
fraudulent is exactly what this is intended to be. A
guest-worker program would be another

old shell game scam
, just like the 1986
amnesty-employer sanction "compromise", which
turned out to be amnesty-only when

enforcement was gutted
by corrupt Congressional
pressure on the INS to go easy on campaign contributors
who were employing large numbers of illegal aliens

But millions of Americans are

unaware of this shameful past
and disgraceful
present. After all, who`s going to tell them? The LA

Next question:

undocumented immigrants who have been living and working
in the U.S. for a number of years, with no criminal
record, to start a path to citizenship.”

Support: 66%


know: 16%

  • You`ll note that the word
    is nowhere mentioned. For over two years
    now, President Bush has been trying to redefine "amnesty"
    to mean the only thing about the whole cave-in that he
    claims he`s against: starting illegal immigrants on a
    path to citizenship. So, this is "amnesty" even
    by Bush`s absurdly narrow definition. But, for some
    reason, the LA Times forgot to include the word
    "amnesty" in the proposal.

  • One notorious problem with
    survey research is that a sizable fraction of
    respondents try to be nice to pollsters and tell them
    what they want to hear. Some of the politically
    savvier participants in the poll will realize that the
    pollster`s use of the

    euphemism "undocumented"
    for "illegal"
    is a dead-certain giveaway that they are supposed to
    answer "Support".

  • But lots of other respondents
    aren`t terribly familiar with the term "undocumented".
    They don`t realize it means "illegal". They
    reason: "If the question was about illegal
    immigrants, well, then it would ask about `illegal
    immigrants.` And if they were illegal immigrants,
    they`d, by definition, have a criminal record, right?
    So, these are innocent people who, apparently, have
    misplaced some documents. And we don`t want to waste
    time harassing them. It`s the illegal immigrants we`ve
    got to concentrate on doing something about!"

  • Exactly where do the
    get to "start a path to
    ? Here? Or back home in their native
    countries? It doesn`t say.

You know and I know etc. that
"start a path to citizenship"
is a euphemism for
"immediately get the privilege of living in America
forever, and get to start

bringing in their relatives
, and if they

feel like it
, they

eventually get to vote too."
But that`s not
what it says.

  • The phrase "start a path to
    has been carefully crafted to
    mislead, to make it sound like the illegals are

    on some arduous journey of the soul that

    mold them

    true-blue Americans.
    And who could be against
    that? The reality, of course, is

    quite different

Next question:

off hundreds of miles of the border between the U.S. and
Mexico and make it a felony to enter illegally."

Support: 42%


know: 23%

This is the only proposal that`s
not weasel-worded into meaningless ambiguousness. It
contains none of the euphemisms of the two policies that
the LA Times favors. It`s been phrased to
shock—as the Open Borders/Cheap Labor/Reconquista Lobby
expected—the sensitivities of the public.

But still it passed! America

wants a fence

And America does not want an
amnesty—as the GOP will find out the hard way if it lets

and ideologues bamboozle it over the
amnesty cliff.

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

movie critic

The American Conservative
His website
features his daily