Posted on 11/21/2006 10:30:00 AM PST by Aetius
The questions that were asked are here:
quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=988
The question "Do you support or oppose creation of a guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants to register for temporary legal status and employment?" is misleading when considered in light of the long-term "guest" worker schemes proposed.
However, the other question is not as obviously misleading: "Currently illegal immigrants cannot apply for citizenship. If the law were changed to allow illegal immigrants to register into a guest worker program, should that program offer them the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years?"
It would have been more accurate if they had then asked people about all the negative effects of that scheme, such as unending chain migration, further illegal immigration by those hoping to be part of a future amnesty, increased political power for the Mexican government inside the U.S., etc. etc.
If you didn't literally fall off the turnip truck you will be presented with carefully shaped questions designed to make you appear that you did. If you choose not to participate your input isn't included - if you comply your opinion is shaped into the desired result.
That's not a poll...that's modern propagandizing. I suspect that this is just a glimpse into the hyper-cynical future of political gamesmanship we'll be subject to while the neocon-Democrat partnership burns through the remainder of our Constitution.
Why do I feel under attack here of late when posting conservative viewpoints? The attempts to blame conservatives for the neocons' overall failure is lame to all who bother to read and analyze. The problem is the majority of sheep who refuse to do that much.
That picture was too high speed - it didn't show the head cracking against the wall of corrupt self-deceit.
I don't support increasing legal immigration, and most polls on that question show the vast majority of Americans to be opposed as well. But if one does support more legal immigration, then they should be upfront about it like you were. The problem, however, is that the various 'comprehensive' reform bills hide and disguise what would be enormous increases in permanent legal immigration. The champions of 'comprehensive' reform never advertise or brag about this little nugget, as they instead hope that no one will notice until its too late.
I'm all for a guest worker program, once their work is done they need to go back home ...
But it doesn't present all of the options. It is typical of these polls to frame the debate as though it is a choice between a path to citizenship or mass deportations, when the truth is that there are other options. You can call it Attrition or Enforcement First, but it is a viable alternative, and polling that has presented it as an option has shown it to be more popular than the path to citizenship.
And it is bizarre that so many conservatives/Republicans would apparently support a path to citizenship and increased amounts of future legal immigration seeing as how it will only empower the Democrats by swelling their number of voters.
So I guess you don't mind handing the Democrats a huge net gain in future voters?
Well, it seems you've bought into the bogus idea (put forth so assiduously by the Left, Democrats, Media, and WSJ-wing of the Republican party) that the only alternative to granting citizenship to illegals is to grant them a path to citizenship. We wouldn't have to 'cart em all back', as the attrittion/enforcement first strategy would result in a large amount of self-deportation. While deportation should not be taken off the table for any illegals, it could be focused more on criminal illegals.
So attack the enforcement first approach if you want, but don't pretend as though its not an option.
Hardly any polls I've seen present all the options. I do want enforcement, but I'm also in favor of embracing immigrants and assimilating them. (Though I think we have a right to decide how many and whom we take in.) Without immigrants, who is going to pay for all the entitlements that we've voted for our aging population?
I don't take it as a given that all immigrants will be captives of the Democratic Party -- though maybe that will be so if the Republicans become the party of nativism. Even immigrants like to hang on to some of the money they earn, buy houses, and so on.
We probably need these people for their labor and we probably need to streamline the process for them to come legally, if they have jobs.
If we do this correctly, why do we need a fence?
The incentive would be to enter legally.
Attrition is also known broadly as Enforcement-First. But basically it means you combine serious border-security measures with serious interior enforcement so that the influx of future illegals is greatly reduced, and the current population of illegals is gradually reduced. Tools include walls and fencing, more border patrol agents, employment enforcement, cutting off of drivers licenses, non-emergency public services, and in-state tuition, and yes, deportation too (though it could be focused on criminal aliens).
Maybe if we tried this (and I mean really tried it), it wouldn't work. Who knows? But its certainly preferable to try first over the path to citizenship approach, which we know would result in many more Democrats in the future.
First of all, defending mass immigration for its alleged ability to sustain entitlement programs hardly seems a good reason from a conservative point of view. That seems to be using one bad public policy to prop up another bad public policy.
And you're right, of course, that hardly any polls present all of the options, and the reason for that is probably because it would present a picture unfavorable to the path to citizenship approach.
But anyway, unending mass immigration is inherently anti-assimilation. It never ceases to amaze me how so many conservatives fail to see this. So long as the influx is large, then the pressure to assimilate will be lessened. This is so for many reasons, chief among them being that an unending flow allows for ethnic enclaves to grow and persist, and it empowers those elite forces in society preaching multiculturalism. Yes, its true that we have a bunch of elitist, guilt-ridden whites to thank for the scourge of multiculturalism and political correctness, but the fact remains that their destructive ideas gain a greater hold on society the more customers for those ideas we admit. And don't forget that the last mass wave from Europe came to an end, and was followed by over 40 yrs of low-moderate immigration; a fact almost always conveniently ignored by those making the 'we've been here before' argument.
And I agree that not all immigrants and their first and second generation offspring in the US will be Democrats; but I think at least 60% will, and that's probably being optimistic for the GOP. This idea that if only Republicans weren't so mean to immigrants, and if they weren't so nativist/xenophobic/anti-whatever, then immigrants would be running to the GOP, is a fantasy. There are many problems with this line of thought, including the fact that ANY position short of amnesty and increased amounts of unending mass legal immigration will get one branded one of the various names listed above, because those vested with name-calling authority are almost entirely on the Left, whether its the media or the professional ethnic grievance groups. To not be called nativist, the GOP will basically have to become the Democrats on immigration (and aff action/racial preferences too, as there is a massive collision ahead between immigration and prefernces).
Another problem is that there just isn't much proof for this idea that the various immigrant groups are 'natural Republicans.' Much of this is based on the Catholic-based cultural values of latinos, and while it may be true as it relates to specific issues (gay marriage for example), they are typically of less importance than other issues in determing political allegiance. The same latino electorate that voted for the gay marriage banning iniative in California turns around and votes for Feinstein and Boxer, Gore and Kerry, Davis, Bustamante, and Angelides.
And it boggles the mind to think that many low-skill, low-wage immigrants will be won over by promises to cut taxes they don't pay! They will always be more receptive to the big-govt agenda of the Democrats.
Even Asians, who tend to be more educated and upwardly mobile, and who (unlike Hispanics) once did favor the GOP, now vote by significant majorities for the Democrats.
And its worth noting that there are very few instances where Republicans have won the latino vote in a significant statewide election. It seems that Jeb Bush may have done it twice, but Florida is a unique case because of Cubans; the one Hispanic group who tends to favor Republicans. Pataki may have done it in 2002, but it was against weak competition. And for all of his talk, the best President Bush ever did in his home state was not even 50% (though it was close once or twice).
Despite my pessimism on this question, I do hope that you're right on the future voting patterns of immigrants, as with the Democrats in control of Congress, and a President with very liberal views on immigration, its seems the mass flow will only grow.
The use of the words 'Guest Worker' is part of what frustrates me most about this. A genuine guest worker program would be made up of actual guests; i.e. people who eventually go home. And it would make no sense to allow them to bring family with them while working, as that would only serve to anchor them to the US and make it less likely that they'd willingly leave.
Now, if one thinks that is cold, then fine, but they shouldn't play on what the word 'guest' puts into the mind of the public when trying to sell their agenda. They should be upfront and honest about it. They should say that they favor a massive increase in (already large-scale) permanent legal immigration.
That the less-than-attractive aspects of these 'comprehensive' reform bills rarely get exposed by the press is no surprise, and its no wonder that they poll so well since people aren't given all the information. I mean, (as lonewacko said), would the public favor the 'path to citizenship' if they knew what that would ultimately mean? What would they say if told by the pollster the following; 'by the way, thanks to chain migration, the path to citizenship for current illegals and future guest workers will result in tens of millions more legal immigrants over that which would be admitted under current law.' Would they say yes to the 'path to citizenship' then?
We'll probably never know, because Gallup, Quinnipiac, and Zogby aren't going to ask them, and because the sponsors of comprehensive' reform aren't going to bother informing us rubes of that little fact, and neither will the media, which is hopeleslly biased in favor of mass immigration.
It is extremely annoying that the Fred Barnes and Bill Kristols of the Right are out there blaming the midterm debacle on the failure of the GOP House to embrace 'comprehensive' reform. It is particularly irksome from neoconservatives like these because the war in Iraq that they wanted so much actually did contribute to the midterm losses, and it contributed big time.
And I don't mean that to be taken as an indictment of the war, of whether its right or wrong, or whether it was a good decision or a bad one. I am speaking only of the current political consequences, which undeniably hurt Republicans across the nation. There are probably dozens of soon-to-be former Republican Congressmen and Senators who would be on their way back to D.C. if not for Iraq, whereas there are probably zero Republicans who could have been saved by embracing comprehensive immigration reform, or had such reform passed.
You could be right, but I NEVER talk to anyone who says what you said in your post. And, btw, my democrat friends are the most hardcore people whe talking about wanting illegals out of this country.
susie
Oh my, so can I also gather from your post that no one can be against terrorism unless they are willing to personally hunt down terrorists? Yikes, what an appalling idea.
susie
Oh, come on we can't do that! They may have American born children! The media will show pictures of their children without their mothers/fathers or being forced back to a horrible country...or.... well, you get my drift.
susie
Excellent explanation, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.