[erelvenewmeva]

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/bl...c-79722f1ef05d

Friday, May 25, 2007

Which Poll is Right on Immigration?

Posted by: Michael Medved at 10:29 PM

Two recent headlines gave starkly divergent summaries of the state of public opinion on comprehensive immigration reform.

The New York Times (May 25th) reported: “IMMIGRATION BILL PROVISIONS GAIN WIDE SUPPORT IN POLL.”

Meanwhile, two days earlier Rasmussen Reports summarized its own poll with the headline: “JUST 26% FAVOR SENATE IMMIGRATION PLAN.”

The substance of the reporting seemed similarly contradictory. Describing a CBS News/NY Times survey of 1,125 adults (conducted May 18-23), the Times declared: “Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.”

On the other hand, the Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted at virtually the same time period (May 21-22) discovered that “initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative…. Just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent are opposed while 26% are not sure.”

The New York Times/CBS poll reported, however, that “point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate.” For instance, on the crucial question, “Should illegal immigrants get a renewable visa if they pay a fine, have a clean record and pass a background check?” more than two thirds (67% agreed), while only 27% registered opposition. Even among self described Republicans, 66% supported the concept of “earned legalization.”

How could two polls, both from reputable public opinion operations, produce such dramatically different results? Did either CBS News/NY Times or Rasmussen deliberately distort their results to produce the outcomes they desired?

That explanation appears highly unlikely, given the inevitable and devastating damage to any polling organization caught in such manipulation. Pollsters (like everyone else) maintain their own biases, but if they allow their ideology to color their work they quickly lose credibility.

In truth, it’s perfectly plausible that both polls gave an accurate indication of public response to the questions they asked. The crucial point here is that the questions posed to the public were every bit as different as the results they produced.

The New York Times poll asked for public opinion on specific points of policy. It approached respondents with questions like “What should happen to illegal immigrants who have been in the US for at least two years?” (62% said “Should be allowed to apply for legal status,” 33% said “should be deported), or “Would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?” (68% favor, only 30% oppose).

The Rasmussen Reports survey, on the other hand, asked about the Senate bill in the abstract, without spelling out its provisions. “In our question measuring support for the Senate bill,” they explained, “Rasmussen Reports did not describe the details of the proposed legislation. We asked survey respondents how closely they have followed news stories about ‘an immigration reform agreement reached by the Bush Administration and a bi-partisan group of Senators.”

In other words, the Rasmussen respondents registered their dislike of the very idea of the Senate bill without any understanding whatever of the specifics of the proposed reforms. For instance, the same group that showed overwhelming opposition to the “immigration reform agreement” showed even more overwhelming support for its most controversial provisions.

Asked, “Would you support an immigration compromise including a very long path to citizenship, provided that the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English, and that the compromise would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country?” an amazing 65% of the Rasmussen survey said yes.

Each of the details mentioned in that question counts as part of the current Senate proposal, where the earliest an illegal alien could qualify for citizenship would be thirteen years after the bill’s passage, and they would have to pay at least $6,500 in fines and show English proficiency before qualifying even for a green card, let alone citizenship. Moreover, none of the changes in status for today’s undocumented aliens would be possible without the bill’s “triggering” mechanism, with certification that the number of entering illegals had, indeed, already been reduced (a process involving building at least half of the border fence, deploying many more border patrol agents, establishing a new system of workplace enforcement and reliable ID, and more – a process estimated to take at least eighteen months from the bill’s enactment).

In other words, the Rasmussen results actually re-enforce, rather than contradict, the New York Times survey. Like the New York Times/CBS respondents, the Rasmussen survey indicates massive support for a path to earned legalization with strict and demanding conditions.

When people know nothing about immigration reform beyond the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of “amnesty” on talk radio and on Lou Dobbs, they naturally dislike it. If they take the time to consider the actual components of the proposed legislation, however, they support those provisions by overwhelming margins of more than two-to-one.

This means that the challenge to those of us who seriously desire immigration reform involves cutting through the ranting and the lies and the noisy sloganeering and trying to explain, as substantively and honestly as possible, what comprehensive reform actually involves.

In the process, it’s inevitable that hysterics and demagogues will denounce anyone who urges meaningful change as a traitor or sell-out or dupe--- a denunciation that never comes with an explanation of why the opponents of reform want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.

Providing honest information and argument respects the judgment and patriotism of the American people. Befouling the public discourse with pronouncements of doom and conspiracy theories, instinctive negativity and simplistic slogans, insults the intelligence of the populace and threatens the nation’s future.