NYT poll on amnesty bill: Majority support amnesty — except when they don’t!
posted at 10:44 pm on May 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Here’s what happens when you poll people on a complex, emotional issue the vagaries of which they know little about. Try to square this circle:
That’s from the Times’s new poll. Tough choices: reward eager, hardworking immigrants by letting them live the American dream or kick these lawbreakers to the curb with some old-school U.S. justice? Just keep asking the same questions with slightly different phrasing. Eventually you’ll get the answer you want.
For instance, here are three different shots at the same basic idea — should we grant amnesty to illegals who have come here to work or not? The first question tracks the basic provisions of the bill (except that the guest worker program in the bill does not allow for eventual legalization), but note what the Times does. Whereas question 63 only asks about a four-year visa, question 64 suddenly switches to full U.S. citizenship with no “no citizenship” option.
Here’s the second variation. Again, you’ve got a large majority approving of a temporary guest worker program, but now when they present the legalization option to them squarely in the follow up, what happens?
In other words, only 37% overall approve of a citizenship track for guest workers as opposed to 55% who either oppose a guest worker program entirely or insist that workers go home at the end of their term. (Or is it the temporariness of the program that those 30% in question 69 oppose? It’s not clear.) That doesn’t directly contradict question 61 screencapped at the top of this post, but there is tension between the two. If we’re unwilling to let guest workers who’ve lived here for a few years assume legal status, why let non-guest-worker illegals who have lived here for more than two years enjoy that privilege?
And the third variation. This is the same question, basically, as number 64 above, but there’s an extra 10 points in the second column here. Why? Probably because question 64 imagined a $5K fine, having to pass a background check, and assorted other penalties and here it’s implied that there’d be no penalties at all.
Taking all the results thus far together, we find that Americans are willing to grant legal status to illegal aliens so long as they’re not here as part of a duly enacted guest-worker program, and only if we also get to prosecute them. Super.
Here’s a smattering of other results touching on aspects of enforcement. You’ll see from the first question that most people support the new merit-based “points system” that Teddy Kennedy’s already secretly eviscerated. The other results speak for themselves.
45% also say the threat of terrorism has increased from illegal immigration (50% say it hasn’t changed). There are 40 immigration questions in all, so click and start on page 23 if you’re hungry for more.
Meanwhile, Kaus’s righteous fury at the impending amnesty is leading him towards Sullivanesque conspiracy fantasias. Easy, Mickey. Make the rage productive.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I read somewhere that you can torture numbers until they tell you whatever you want. I guess it’s true?
SouthernGent on May 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM
AP what are you doing? You’re not supposed to analyze their methodology! You are simply supposed to face the fact you are on the wrong side of the issue and submit! Sheez - the never of some pundits!
TheBigOldDog on May 24, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I like the analysis here AP. Obviously I enjoy your blogging anyway, but this is the sort of thing that is right up my alley. I used to blog the contradictions within polls, and point out tricky question writing, etc.
I know it’s time consuming, which is half the reason I haven’t really cared to much to get my hosting issues worked out and making my blog operational again… I was spending so much time on things like this that are sort of a lot to digest… But it happens all to frequently and gets no coverage. It’s just like when the AP lies and misleads in their headlines and blogs rarely even pick up on it.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, allow me to repeat my immigration plan. Secure the border with however many National Guard troops are necessary. Build a wall, then you can relax the National Guard, and probably find a reasonable amount of border patrol.
Once that’s done (and while it’s being done actually) enact laws that punish businesses who hire illegals harshly. Scare the crap out of them to the point where they don’t want to risk it. This should help dry up some of the incentive to come here, and may even send some home (though the purpose is really for less chaos going forward).
I’m a realist and recognize that there’s no way to deport the millions of illegals, so perhaps we can just stick to “criminal illegals”. We should enact laws that make it easy to prosecute local and state law enforcement if they knowingly don’t report criminal illegals to ICE. Get rid of the scum.
For those that are here, the majority are here because Mexico sucks and the median income is something like 1/10 of ours. They can make tons of tax free money, send it home, have anchor babies, etc. It’s a free for all, yet Paco ain’t living in a mansion. In reality, I think most of us would do the same thing in their situations. Obviously they should fix their own screwed up country, but I think they’re all so poor and uneducated they feel helpless.
So what do we do with them? Well, while they may not be high society types here, the kind of money they send home is huge back there. I say we (AT A MINIMUM) double the tax rate for them, give them some sort of ID card (maybe after the touch-back thing, but I’m not sure that’s really going to work, unless employers are scared in to only hiring those with the ID, forcing the illegals to go through the process if they intend to find a job). Not only do they pay double taxes, but they also should pay in to social security and medicare, but not be eligible to benefit from it. Perhaps after a set time, maybe 10 years, they can apply for citizenship, but on the same path as everyone else, not jumping ahead. If they haven’t committed crimes, have paid their taxes, etc. they should eventually get cleared for citizenship, at which point we could bring their tax rate to the norm, and the money they pay in to SS/medicare could benefit them in the future. Maybe we could still stick them with a 1% “your welcome” tax for life.
RightWinged on May 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM
blast! type on the last sentence your=you’re. (”you’re welcome tax”)
RightWinged on May 24, 2007 at 11:29 PM
You need to get to the Republican straw poll thread Rightwing the Paulinistas are spamming for all their worth to drive the numbers for their guy.
William Amos on May 25, 2007 at 12:00 AM
So one in 20 people living here, conservatively, is illegal. That blows my mind. But what’s worse is our government does zero about it.
Mojave Mark on May 25, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Questions the POLL forgot:
Q- Should immigrants follow the law when emigrating to America?
Follow-up: If not, why not?
Q- Should lawbreakers (”line-jumpers”) get preferential treatment over those who are going through the legal process of immigration?
If so: WHY?
Q- Do you have locks on your doors at home?
Q- Should our borders have similar “locks” (complete fences, more border guards, high tech surveillance, etc.)?
If not, why not?
If you do not establish a rational-national-defense mindset with your questions, first, people will be unfocused and will not react with suffienct enlightened self-interest to the seriousness of the issue.
profitsbeard on May 25, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Unfortunately part of the “comprehensive” strategy is to confuse and associate poll results with a mandate for faux amnesty.
If public outrage can be made to appear mixed then it’s full speed ahead for a confusing, complex under the radar amnesty (and worse) bill.
Just another (in a long line of) excuse(s) that legislators can use to be adverse to the adamant public demand for enforcement first, talk later.
George should be glad the only thing that gets people off of BDS syndrome is just how furious they are at the government betrayal they’ve suffered from the fraudulent handling of illegal migration.
Speakup on May 25, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Some of the apparent contradictions can be explained by a group of people who want a wall that is used to stop criminals but allow legitimate workers. That would explain the people who said to number 70 “leave at the end,” which they may have understood to mean the touchback trip for the Z visa, because those who committed a crime in Mexico aren’t going to go back.
The large number in favor of prosection for number 74 may refer to illegals who continue to ignore the relaxed restrictions.
There is persisent 65+% who favor some major liberalization, which is why this is going forward. (Even higher on http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm)
pedestrian on May 25, 2007 at 1:30 AM
That is why such polls are called push polls, as they are meant to give you your opinion, instead of asking it.
Reality check, public polls should have zero impact on driving our government’s law enforcement policies. The laws to be enforced should be the beginning and ending of the debate. Enforce current laws until you change them. Period.
Freelancer on May 25, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Re: Kaus
There does seem to be little discussion of the immigration issue on FOX News, but I don’t know how that compares to other news organizations which usually have different stories prioritized compared to the blogs.
Ann Coulter brought up the conspiracy theory (approvingly?) on Hannity & Colmes to try and discuss immigration instead of Iraq.
frankj on May 25, 2007 at 3:04 AM
Ah yes - pollsters and hurricane forecasters.
Hurricane forecasters tell us how many storms we can expect.
If their forecast is way off they blame it on global warming, el Nino or George Bush. IF they are close to being right they will say ’see, we told you so’.
Pollsters phrase the questions so they can get the answers they want. The final results of the poll, of course, depends on who paid for the poll.
Bottom line - you can’t trust hurricane forecasters or pollsters.
OBX Pete on May 25, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Has anyone here ever actually been polled by one of these organizations?
James on May 25, 2007 at 7:46 AM
Regarding sources of news and polls….always consider the source.
lynnv on May 25, 2007 at 7:47 AM
Who even cares what a NYT poll says?
ctmom on May 25, 2007 at 7:54 AM
Never.
Glynn on May 25, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Actually yes - and by sheer luck. I actually received a phone call from Gallup. As luck would have it, we were all home on a rainy Sunday, one of my kids was ill. I’m sure they didn’t expect a conservative to be home on Sunday, especially in a MA town that went 62% for Kerry. I’m sure it skewed their numbers. I also laughed out loud at least 4 or 5 times.
I also happened to get an email from Zogby to take a poll, not I keep getting them. Those are fun as well. They are quite time consuming, actually and ask some bizarre questions. On one page they are asking what cereal I like, and the next if I am ashamed of GWB.
I’ve also noticed that the questions pages load up in groups of 10 or so, and seem to be influenced by your previous answers. You answer 10, click submit, then it’s off to the next 10 after a brief wait. The best part is, I am always asked if I am a NASCAR fan halfway through. No other sport, no other hobby…. my answers must profile me as a NASCAR fan. Of course, I’m not and I answer no, it must screw up their system.
reaganaut on May 25, 2007 at 8:53 AM
now I keep getting them…
I think they must share numbers as well. I went from never being called to 3 times in a year, can’t be coincidence. I got a phone call from Zogby as well, and suffered through an inane poll about phone books. I want them to keep calling though, just because I know they are out fishing for liberals.
I got a call the other day and the caller id read “CBS 4 Poll” or something similar, with NY area code. I wish I could have answered it. I hate telemarketers, but I’ll suffer through some polls knowing I can probably influence the totals.
reaganaut on May 25, 2007 at 8:59 AM
If they ram amnesty through Congress and 6 months later Mexico announces it is privatizing its oil industry, what will you say then Allahpundit?
Theworldisnotenough on May 25, 2007 at 9:45 AM
The Mayor of Hazelton PA who started the first illegal citizen free city and got blasted for it by the libs and ACLU had this happen to him in the recent PA voters primary….Ready? He carried 90%+ of the Republican vote and took the Democratic vote 3-1. And was re-elected. How’s that for a poll of what the people really feel!!!!
soulsirkus on May 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Question 56 is a great example of push polling:
It assumes that there are two diametrically opposed camps who are each monolithic in their reasoning for or against illegal immigration.
There are a lot of reasons that people tolerate or encourage illegal immigration. Some take (IMO, out of context) it to be a Christian virtue to welcome the alien among them and that this is an extension of the Great Commission to “Love thy neighbor.” Some believe that we shouldn’t doom folks to a life of poverty.
A lot of folks oppose illegal immigration for more reasons than are listed: respect for the rule of law, increased crime rates, the attrition of the values that made America successful, etc.
What makes the question even dumber is that they’re asking for an opinion on something that’s measurable. We can ascertain their economic impact. It’s like asking your opinion on how hot the sun is.
cmay on May 25, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Well, if you’ve been polled, I suppose I can stop believing that they just make up the numbers and now only believe that they skew the respondents to make their numbers say what they want.
(Which, in practice, is pretty much the same thing.)
James on May 25, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Regarding Kaus, he clearly had tongue planted firmly in cheek when he was discussing his conspiracy theory. He wasn’t being serious.
RW Wacko on May 25, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I don’t think the answers are that contradictor… take the first couple…
1) Should illegal immigrants be given a chance to apply for legal status? Yes.
2) What should be done with illegal immigrants? Prosecute them.
It is possible to believe that the law should be changed to allow for a potential path to legal status, while simultaneously believing that we should prosecute them in accordance with the law until that legal change occurs.
In other words, if the respondents’ expressed desire for a “chance to apply” comes to pass (which would require a change in the law), then the preconditions for question two no longer exist, because it explicitly asks what we should do with ILLEGAL immigrants.
DaveS on May 25, 2007 at 11:53 AM
I don’t know much about the vagaries either (or even what “vagaries” are), but I do know that Saudi Arabia will arrest you for living there while Christian, while we’re just like, “Okay, you’re here already, why not.” Are we allowed to just move to whatever country we want and live there without checking in? (See, I told you I didn’t understand the vigorousness.)
Jim Treacher on May 25, 2007 at 11:06 PM