Mickey Kaus in the Daily Caller:
February 18, 2014.
Paranoids live better: It saves time and confusion, when you are trying to understand MSM polls on immigration, if you start from the premise that they are designed to produce the amnesty the MSM consensus favors. Why, for instance, would Gallup ask voters whether the main focus of immigration policy should be to “deal with immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally” (with the alternative being “halting the flow of illegal immigrants”)?
What does it mean to “deal with” illegals who are already here? Who knows? Many voters might think it means punish them, or deport them, or facilitate Mitt Romney’s famous “self-deportation”? Yet in Gallup’s initially inexplicable typology voters who favor such hard-ass solutions somehow get counted on the pro-amnesty side. If Gallup used clearer language–like saying the idea was to “legalize” or even “normalize” current illegals–then it might look as if a lot fewer people backed the MSM’s program. Aha! Paranoia provides the key to understanding.
We call this "pollaganda" here at VDARE.com.
Kaus also mentions this graph, below:
n fact, the chart for Gallup’s “forced choice” question (the last graph on the page–hmm) suggests a simple explanation of the distinctly un-epic “shift” it tracks: When Congress starts to talk seriously about actually making immigration policy–in 2006 and 2007, and after the debate on the Senate Gang of 8 bill heated up in 2013–voters shift to prioritize “halting the flow.” Meanwhile, in 2011 and 2012 the focus was on state laws, like Arizona’s SB 1070, designed to crack down on illegal immigrants already here–and on Romney’s “self-deportation” remark, which also concerned those “currently in the U.S. illegally.” So, duh, more people–hard-ass or no–thought the main focus should be on what people were talking about, namely current illegal residents.