Sound and Fury signifying Nothing

Monday, June 19, 2006
That is what the immigration debate has been. It seems it is dead, after months and months of telling us that we are in crisis, the hardliners are refusing to even compromise on a guest worker program. I guess the lettuce will just pick itself. God knows the guys who signed this won't be doing any field work anytime soon. I find it difficult to believe that a decent compromise would have been all that difficult to reach if the desire had been there to reach it. So much for the 70% of the population who supported Bush's program. He finally gets majority support on something and his own party stabs him in the back. Again.

I wonder how that registration drive to sign up a million new voters is going for the proimmigration folks? I would say this will give them an oppurtunity to beef up their numbers for a more liberal bill in the future.

I also wonder why it is that George Bush can not count on his own party even in a war. With friends like this, the man does not need enemies. Lucky for them Murtha is out there keeping people like me from voting for Democrats.

7 comments:

David Thomson said...

The sausage making of politics is often an unappealing sight. A per se immigration bill will not be passed. Instead, we will see bits and pieces of one being approved. Border security will continue to tighten. Employers will be helped to inexpensively verify a job applicant’s basic ID. The immigrants already here will simply not get a clear path to citizenship. Other than that, we will find someway to allow them to keep working. The central goal will be achieved: newly arrived illegals will be very frustrated by the new obstacles. Those remaining behind in the old country will be less likely to take the plunge.

terrye said...

david:

I hope you are right.

The thing that bothers me is not this particular issue, not really, it is the pattern I see developing of bands of vocal people on both extremes of the politcal spectrum who seem bound an determined to undermine any sort of consensus on any issue.

Even when they are the ones bound and determined to create the issue.

I wonder what the next hissey fit will be about?

I think they need a guest worker program to take pressure off the border. But they do not seem concerned at all about who will do the work these folks are presently doing.

Rick Ballard said...

Terrye,

No action is probably the right action. Following the "rise" of this "problem" leads back to the same people and organizations responsible for generating the idea that the electorate was "hungry to get money out of politics". Once they found the dim bulb with a loud voice on the Rep side to help carry the water we wound up with CFR - and 527's.

They haven't found anyone as dumb as McCain to help out with the "immigration problem" so all that has happened is blather - and some increased enforcement of existing laws.

As to the "1 million" registration figure - think of it as a "Million Mom March" - they might get 10,000 registrations with a 40% turnout rate. Big deal.

An even bigger deal will be the word passing around in the illegal's communitites that all the Mechista noise has attracted La Migra and that Uncle Juan hasn't been seen lately. Thanks Democrats!

Better no bill than a stupid bill - expecially when enforcement of existing laws will achieve more than anything concocted in the Senate or House.

No bailout for LA either - they created the mess they are in and they can buy their way out of it. That's why I like the initial enforcement focus south of Tucson. It's always better to help those who've started helping themselves.

terrye said...

Rick:

Well considering the fact that everybody thinks everybody else's bill is a stupid bill I guess that means we will never be able to deal with this.

The thing that pisses me off is that the people who killed any hope of a compromise are the same people who were demanding action in the first damn place.

I mean it was not Bush or McCain or Frist who were ranting about and invasion of illegals who were trying to destroy the country and give it back to Mexico and all manner of nonsense, it was Tancredo and Sessions and Hastert who were making a big deal out of it in the first damn place.

They could have increased border security without all this drama and instituted a guest worker program of some sort without it all being such a big deal. They just end up looking like morons and polarizing people even more than they already were.

Rick Ballard said...

"we will never be able to deal with this."

Terrye,

There is no "this" to deal with - at least in the sense that a new bill is required. "This" is a phantasm concocted by the Pew Center for Hispanic Studies and some other left wing foundations in the same way that they concocted "too much money in politics". Pew deliberately jacked up the numbers to 11M to get "this" in the news and it's worked pretty well. Just not well enough for it to have its desired effect. O' Reilly, Tancredo and J D Hayworth beat their little nativist tom-toms and stirred up the "protect our precious bodily fluids" fringe out on the right wing and generated the stupidity which you rightfully despise.

You have it right in your title "signifying nothing" is precisely what this has been. The better focus (IMO) is how Pew managed to get teamed up with Tancredo.

Atlantin said...

re:" So much for the 70% of the population who supported Bush's program." terre

This is Bull.

Read the following:

A Third Rigged Pro-Immigration Poll
By Steve Sailer
June 18, 2006
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060618_poll.htm

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
By JOHN HARWOOD

"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.
- Nor is there any mention of the huge increases in legal immigration wedged into the Senate Christmas tree.
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 it?

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.com features his daily blog.]

terrye said...

Steve;

It is not bull, I was referring to a Gallup poll done right before the presdient;'s speech and to the RNC poll. Believe it or not most people feel like we have enough problems to deal without trying the mass deportation of 11 million people.

Anyway, nothing is going to get fixed. Too many people would rather bitch.