LAT Times: Immigration Poll: Americans Punitive In The Short Term, Welcoming In The Long Run

The outlines for a consensus are pretty clear, according to the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey.

** About 60% of Democrats, Republicans and independents support "a path to citizenship by registering, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements." (Opponents label this approach "amnesty." So most Americans support some form of amnesty, whether they know it or not.

** A majority of Americans oppose allowing illegal immigrants to receive emergency room care, and sixty percent oppose letting illegal immigrants' children attend public schools.

Comments

The LA Times in known for twisting its polls and the results can not be trusted. Another reasons why they will be out of business soon.

Posted by Terry | December 6, 2007 8:13 AM

I don't think there is a path to agreement here. Hispanic activists, for whom the issues have very salience, and the political elite (i.e., congressmen, federal judges, etc.) are dead set against strong English-only measures or denying welfare benefits to illegal aliens. So the fact that bare majorities of the politically uninvolved masses might agree on something isn't going to lead anywhere.

Posted by y81 | December 6, 2007 8:51 AM

I think there is broad agreement against the ejection, either forced or voluntary, of 12 million immigrants from the country and our economy, which amounts to about 1 in 20 US workers. There is also broad agreement about wanting to eliminate FUTURE illegal immigration. The enforcement-only approach of most Republicans and some Democrats (in the House, particularly) focuses more on reducing the number of people here, which is the goal of a relatively small part of the electorate, rather than on the creation of a legal regime that includes and assimilates the millions of immigrants already here illegally (who we frankly cannot and should not get rid of).

Once that bridge is crossed -- ramped up enforcement without expulsion -- then a controlled and enforceable legal framework is in place to discourage future illegal immigration. Personally, I would expand legal immigration to more closely match market demand so that the illegal immigration currently driven into the black-market is vetted and under greater control. Others prefer to keep immigration below market demand, but either way, enforcement alone as a strategy to gain overall control is unlikely to succeed. Giving us credit, I think the American people understand this and are waiting for the absolutists, who think no one here illegally should ever be legalized, to get out of the way -- either forced or voluntarily -- of a solution to the immigration issue.

Posted by Andi Medi | December 6, 2007 11:57 AM

Opponents label this approach "amnesty." So most Americans support some form of amnesty, whether they know it or not.

Eh? Because one political faction labels concept X as Y, X is Y? That's terrible logic.

Imagine the following:

Intelligent Design advocates label the refusal of school districts to teach Intelligent Design as "persecution". So most Americans support some form of persecutions whether they know it or not

or

Nazis label those who think Jews should be allowed to live in the country as "traitors". So most Americans are betraying their country in some way, whether they know it or not.

Allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship after bearing punishment for the transgression of entering illegally is not "some form of amnesty" simply because opponents label it as such. The definition of Amnesty from Wikipedia:

Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is an act of justice by which the supreme power in a state restores those who may have been guilty of any offence against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence. The word has the same root as amnesia.

So, no, this approach is not "amnesty", no matter how much opponents falsely label it as such.

Posted by Meng Bomin | December 6, 2007 1:38 PM

This Times has a record of polling malfeasance. During the California recall election its results were at such variance with other polls that the fundamental statistical basis that underlies polls would have been at question. I wrote to its polling director to try and get an explanation but never got a response. But then, in a highly unusual move, the Field polling organization took them to task, discrediting their sampling methodology.

But sampling isn't the only way polling results can be at variance from the truth. The question wording, order and other such things do the same. Some of the immigration questions in poll itself (pdf) are problematic.

" One proposal that has been discussed in Congress would allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say? Do you (support/oppose) it strongly, or (support/oppose) it somewhat? "

This is focus group-tested language developed by open-borders amnesty proponents. Ask people if they support amnesty, even if you attribute that definition to its opponents, and your results will be far different.

And then the reporting on the polls can further distort their meaning. The Times published a graphic entitled Looking at Immigration where they noted that "six in 10 would allow at least one” social service. That's an interesting spin to put of the polling results that didn't find a majority of support for any of the social service options, with even emergency medical garnering only 46%.

I have been reading the L.A. Times all my life and their coverage of illegal immigration, editorials and editorial opinion editing is horribly slanted. The article on the poll says there is ambivalence among voters on the issue. We'll that's not surprising. What policy at issue doesn't have arguments on both sides that have meaning? But arriving at good policy involves resolving the conflicts and developing a coherence. Enabling that process in the minds of voter requires exposing them to an honest and open debate. Yet the Times and most major papers seldom hire writers that disagree with the elite consensus on immigration. The greatest divisions of the country on immigration are between the elites and the non-elites and it is the elites who control and work in the media. I have contacted people at the Times and many other papers to ask that they hire, or at least allow others who disagree with their agenda on immigration be allowed a place in the paper, so that readers can compare and weigh the arguments being made. Why do all the people in the country, as demonstrated by this poll, who disagree with the elites immigration agenda not deserve to have someone in newspapers to represent them? What does that tell you about the media and it's role in our democracy?

Posted by Jeff | December 6, 2007 1:52 PM

This article doesn't make sense to me. One statement says that approx 60% say that they are for a path to citizenship. Then it say the majority are against giving any benefits to to illegals and their children. So, out of 120% of the people polled had opposing veiws or 60% of the people polled had multiple personalities?

Posted by howard | December 6, 2007 2:16 PM

Meng Bomin,

Bush’s Immigration bill sure looked like amnesty to me, although there were some conditions and a small fine that many people from all over the world would pay in a heart beat if they could legally immigrate to the United States. The fine is peanuts compared to the gain in entitlements and job opportunities. You may choose not to call it amnesty but it is wrong to reward anyone that enters illegally or overstays a visa.

Posted by BrianSDCA | December 6, 2007 3:06 PM

Certainly, illegal immigrants should not get priority over legal immigrants, but if they do pay a penalty and satisfy the conditions, the should be eligible. This is not amnesty. That involves wiping the record clean. It's more than a pardon. If they are punished (a fine is indeed punishment), it's not amnesty, by definition.

Posted by Meng Bomin | December 6, 2007 7:52 PM

Meng Bomin,

If illegal immigrants are given any form of legitimate legal residency and benefits, it would be a reward for breaking the specific law they are trying to take advantage of. Whether you call it amnesty or a pardon, it is just semantics and still unfair and wrong. These illegal immigrants would be receiving a de facto priority over legal immigrants that waited years to immigrate legally. As I stated in my prior comment there are millions that would gladly pay the weak penalties proposed in Bush’s failed immigration bill in order to become a United States citizen.

Brian

Posted by BrianSDCA | December 6, 2007 11:59 PM

DON'T FORGET...An illegal alien granted amnesty automatically becomes a MINORITY.

What do you plan on doing with 30 million illiterate minorities?

THINK HARD!!!

Posted by Dean Smith--Palm Desert, California---USA | December 7, 2007 4:08 AM

Howard- It's not uncommon to get contradictory results out of a poll. Here are two questions from a New York Time poll of May 18-23, 2007.

61. If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years: They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, OR They should be deported back to their native country?

Chance to apply for legal status 62
Deported 33
DK/NA 4

74. Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn't they?

Should be prosecuted 69
Should not 24
DK/NA 6

What do you suppose the articles about it said?

An amnesty with conditions is still an amnesty. It is perfectly reasonable to consider it so. And it is definitely a reward, not a punishment, for having broken the law, the people being eligible precisely because they have broken the law. If you doubt it is a reward, that question is testable. We could offer the same deal to those who haven't broken our laws and because there are billions of people who lives would be improved by immigrating to the U.S., we could auction 12 million spots off. I have read reports of Chinese paying $50,000 to be smuggled into the country illegally so I'd expect people to be will to pay dearly for the opportunity to immigrate here legally. Since people don't pay to be punished, that will end the fictitious notion of punishment.

Posted by Jeff | December 7, 2007 8:33 AM

LA Times Distorts Its Own Poll On Illegal Aliens

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, www.WalterMooreForMayor.com

Today the L.A. Times reported the results of a poll it conducted on illegal immigration. The newspaper’s bias — political and financial — shows when you compare the article to the poll itself, and when you look at the wording of the poll.

THEIR HEADLINE LIES

Let’s start with the headline: “1 in 3 would deny illegal immigrants social services.” The headline makes it sound like only 33% would deny illegal aliens welfare, “free” education, etc. Hidden message: if you want to deny them benefits, you’re in some kook minority.

But the actual poll results are quite the opposite. Here are the percentages of people who said they would DENY the following specific benefits to illegal aliens:

In-state college tuition 82%
Food stamps 76%
Driver’s licenses 72%
Public schools 56%
Emergency medical 48%

Quite a difference from the “1 in 3″ proclaimed in the headline, huh? If you were writing the headline, what would it say? How about something like, “Majority favor denying all social services except emergency medical.” Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

So where does the “1 in 3″ figure come from? That’s the number of people who chose “none of the above” when asked which services they would let illegal aliens receive.

THEIR PIE LIES

Let’s move from the headline to the “lying pie.” The article also features a pie chart showing that only 36% of the respondents said illegal aliens have had a negative impact on their communities. The key words are “on their communities,” because the survey included people all over America, not just here in the “Ground Zero” of the illegal invasion. Have illegal aliens ruined Bangor, Maine yet? Probably not. Key West? Ditto.

The results differ dramatically when the question shifts from respondents’ “communities” to the nation as a whole. When asked about problems “facing the country,” 81% said illegal immigration is an important problem. Specifically, 54% said it was important, and another 27% said it was one of the most important problems facing the nation.

HOW ABOUT “ALL OF THE ABOVE?”

Other examples of bias abound. The questions are, for the most part, rigged to minimize the problem of illegal immigration. For example, the poll did not ask people whether they support more border security, sanctions against employers, AND more arrests and deportations, etc.

Instead, respondents were asked on which item the government should focus. Result? You make the percentages for each look smaller than otherwise by forcing people to chose one or the other, rather than “all of the above.” Oh, and get this: people were allowed to support UP TO two items, but they weren’t told that in the question, and they could not support three or more.

CNN DID IT RIGHT

Another way to see the bias in this poll is to compare its wording to the wording of another, objective poll. In October, CNN — unlike the L.A. Times — asked some straightforward questions, and got straightforward responses.

CNN asked, for example, “Would you like to see the number of illegal immigrants currently in this country increased, decreased, or remain the same?” The number of people who said “decreased” was 69%. Quite a different image from the L.A. Times poll, huh? The CNN poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans — 69% — want the number of illegals in this country reduced. Do you remember reading about THAT poll in the L.A. Times? Me, neither.

CNN also asked a question about “sanctuary cities,” like ours. Here is that question: “When state or local police forces encounter illegal immigrants who have not broken any state or local laws, do you think the police should or should not arrest those people and turn them over to the federal government?” The number of people who said the police should turn them over to the feds was 55%. So a majority of Americans oppose “sanctuary city” policies. Shouldn’t the L.A. Times have made that a headline?

WHY IS THE L.A. TIMES BIASED ON THIS ISSUE?

Why is the L.A. Times so biased about illegal aliens? In a word: money. The L.A. Times is owned by the same company that owns Hoy, a Spanish-language newspaper. The financial success of Hoy depends on having large numbers of people here in California who cannot speak English. So the last thing the L.A. Times wants to do is stir American citizens into enforcing our immigration laws.

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5284

Posted by zeezil | December 7, 2007 5:48 PM

The nationwide poll below proves that American citizens are fed up with illegal immigration, want a discontinuation of benefits to illegal aliens that should be reserved for citizens and legal residents only, want our existing immigration laws enforced and want our politicians to serve the interests of the CITIZENS, not foreign nationals illegally in our country:

COLUMBUS, OH -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 12/05/07 -- As the debate heats up over whether or not the U.S. Government should provide benefits to undocumented immigrants, most Americans agree that it is not good for the country, according to the American Pulse(TM) Survey of 4,069 respondents.

The poll revealed these results:

82% of Americans are against providing Driver’s Licenses to illegal aliens
89% of Americans are against providing Business Licenses to illegal aliens
77% of Americans are against providing Educational Benefits to illegal aliens
74% of Americans are against providing Job Training to illegal aliens
83% of Americans are against providing Housing Assistance to illegal aliens

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE NATIONAL AVERAGES AND LIKELY TO BE SEVERAL PERCENT POINTS HIGHER IN A CONSERVATIVE STATE.

http://www.alipac.us/article-2769-thread-1-0.html

Posted by zeezil | December 7, 2007 5:50 PM