The 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 demonstrators in the streets to intimidate America.
For example, the Rupert Murdoch-subsidized Weekly Standard continues to pound the drums for the neocon Grand Strategy of Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World. 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 fighting and dying in Kristol's war in Iraq, is manifest, as Slate.com blogger Mickey Kaus pointed out in "S for Snob."
Two weeks later in the Weekly Standard, bootlicking Bush acolyte Fred Barnes, author of the unintentionally comic paean to the President, Rebel-in-Chief, announced in "Bordering on a Victory" that "The immigration issue has flipped in President Bush's favor." Barnes claimed portentously:
"The 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:
"Once the [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 Race", 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 races.
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 questions.
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 by Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer April 13, 2006]
Let's look in detail at the three proposals offered:
Create a guest-worker program that would give a temporary visa to noncitizens who want to legally work in the U.S.
Don't know: 25%
There are several obvious problems with this question.
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 Times?
Allow 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."
Don't know: 16%
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.
"Fence off hundreds of miles of the border between the U.S. and Mexico and make it a felony to enter illegally."
Don't 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 lobbyists and ideologues bamboozle it over the amnesty cliff.